THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL PARTIES, AND PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS Topics #35-37

The Executive Compromise: The Electoral College

• Hamilton's assessment (Federalist 68):

and hesitate not to affirm that The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. . . . I venture somewhat further, if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent .

• Many subsequent evaluations (and the many proposed constitutional amendments) suggest a less favorable assessment of this part of the Executive Compromise: – part of a generally elitist and anti-democratic constitution; or – a last-minute jerry-built compromise; or – a well designed compromise among diverse considerations, or possibly – the embodiment of well-thought selection criteria.

The Electoral College Compromise

• In any event, the Executive Compromise established a selection system – that was designed to operate in a selection process.

non-partisan

environment, but – that was quickly transformed (by both political practice and constitutional amendment) to accommodate the

political parties

that formed almost immediately to contest the Presidential • The menu of options: – selection by states; – selection by the National Legislature [Congress]; • the “default option” found in both VA and NJ plans • Congressional bicameralism – selection by the people; – mixed systems: • first round (“nomination”) • second round (“election” or “runoff”) • “intermediate electors”

Article II, Section 1 (2-3)

2.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

3. [The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; . . . , and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]

Electoral College Compromise (cont.)

• Use of intermediate “Presidential electors” (i.e., elected officials who have but one power and duty: to cast votes for President).

– Electors are allocated among states by their total representation in Congress (i.e., House seats + 2); – Electors in each state will be selected in a manner prescribed by the legislature of that state.

– Electors will meet separately in each state capitals to cast their votes for President.

– Each elector casts

two

votes • for two different candidates for President • at least one of whom is from another state.

– Electoral votes of each state are transmitted to Congress.

• The electoral votes are counted before joint session of Congress.

Electoral College Compromise (cont.)

• To be elected President on the basis of electoral votes, a candidate must receive – votes from a majority of the electors,

and

– more votes than any other candidate.

• Otherwise [i.e., if no candidate has the required majority or if there is tie among the leading candidates] the election is “thrown into the House” [the

contingent procedure

].

• The House votes by state delegation (one state, one vote, like the Confederation Congress and the Federal Convention) – from among the top

five

candidates [if none has the required majority], or – from among the tied candidates [if both/all have required majority].

Electoral College Compromise (cont.)

• To receive the vote of a state delegation, – a candidate must receive the votes a majority of the members of the delegation [1825 rules].

– So long as no candidate has such majority within the delegation, the state cannot cast a vote.

• To be elected President by the House, a candidate must receive – votes from majority of state delegations.

– There will be repeated ballots until some candidate has the required majority support.

• Creation and selection of the office of Vice President: – the runner-up in presidential voting becomes Vice President.

The Electoral College: An Example

THE ORIGINAL ELECTORAL COLLEGE BEFORE THE 12th AMENDMENT AND USING THE PROVISIONAL APPORTIONMENT OF HOUSE SEATS House Size = 65 Number of Electors = 65 + (2 × 13) = 91 Number of Electoral Votes = 2 × 91 = 182 Maximum Vote Any Candidate Can Receive = 91 (one vote from every elector) Required Majority = 46 (one vote from a majority of electors) If no one gets 46 votes or if there is a tie among those who do: Required Vote in House = 7 In any event, the runner-up becomes Vice President [Note: these numbers were never actually used.]

The Framers’ Expectations Concerning the Electoral College

• Electors would typically be – popularly elected – from single-member districts (like most House members, state legislators, and delegates to the state ratifying conventions).

• Electors would act as

popular trustees

of their states or districts.

• The contingent procedure would be used “19 times out of 20,” so – the big states would have the dominant role in “nominating” candidates, while – the small states would have equal role in final election.

• These expectations did not anticipate the development of a national (two-) party system. • Given that development, the double-vote + runner-up-is VP system turned out to be a big mistake.

The Election of 1789

• Provisional number of electoral votes =182 Washington Adams Scattered for other candidates Total cast RI & NC (had not ratified) Electoral votes not cast Grand total 69 34 35 138 20 24 182 • Washington was elected “unanimously” in the sense that every one of the 130 elector who actually voted cast one of his two votes for Washington.

• Some Southerners feared that that New Englanders wanted to make Adams President by withholding votes from Washington, so they withhold votes from Adams.

• Washington forms a “grand coalition” cabinet, including – Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State – Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury

The Election of 1792

Washington Adams Clinton Jefferson Burr Total [no uncast votes] 132 77 50 4 1 264 • Washington was again elected “unanimously.” • We see beginnings of the Federalist-Republican two party system with respect to the second votes, – which were already thought of as “Vice Presidential” votes.

The Election of 1796

• Thomas Jefferson found himself blocked in the Cabinet.

– He resigned and “went to the country,” – He took the lead in forming a rudimentary political party to contest the next Presidential (and Congressional) election and • in particular, to block Hamilton and his allies from consolidating control of the Presidency and Congress.

• The first contested Presidential election in 1796: –

Federalists

(SC) : John Adams (MA) & Thomas Pickney –

Republicans

: Thomas Jefferson (VA) & Aaron Burr (NY) • The candidates were

nominated Congressional Caucuses

by their respective (to be discussed later).

• Note the regionally “balanced” tickets.

The Election of 1796 (cont.)

• The “campaign” and voting moved from state to state, somewhat like Presidential primary elections today – Different states selected their electors on different days.

– Different states used different methods of selecting electors.

– Both considerations could be manipulated for party advantage.

• Three methods were commonly used to select electors: – (1) selection by the state legislatures; – (2) popular election in single-member districts (which the framers mostly hoped and expected would be used); and – (3) popular election on a “general ticket.” • Usually (1) and by definition (3) are “winner-take-all” systems, i.e., the dominate party in the state won all of the state’s electoral votes.

• In contrast, (2) typically produces divided state electoral votes, so – the dominant party typically won a majority of the state’s electoral votes, but the other party also won some electoral votes.

The Election of 1796 (cont.)

• The electoral vote outcome was very close: – Federalists won 71 electors, all of whom voted for Adams, giving Adams the required majority of 70 for election as President.

– Republicans won 68 electors, all of whom voted for Jefferson.

• Intra-Federalist maneuvering: – Hamilton (who continued to oppose Adams) unsuccessfully urged some Southern electors to vote for Pickney & anybody but Adams – However, some Northern electors learned this and withheld votes from Pickney (giving them to Ellsworth and others).

Adams Jefferson Pickney Burr Scattered 71 68 59 30 48

The Election of 1796 (cont.)

• But the withholding of second Federalist votes from Pickney lowered his vote total to 59, dropping him to third place behind Jefferson, so – the defeated Republican Presidential candidate became Vice President with the Federalist President Adams.

• Republican electors were even less resolute in following the “party line” in casting their second votes, so – Burr got only 30 votes.

• With respect to first votes at least, all electors were expected to be

pledged electors

, i.e., – to be

instructed party delegates

Jefferson rather than Adams.

rather than

popular trustees

.

• Notably, Samuel Miles (Fed., PA) violated his pledge and voted for • An angry Federalist supporter complained: “What, do I choose Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas shall be President? No! I choose him to

act

, not to

think

.”

The Election of 1800

• Largely a repeat of 1796 (and a grudge match) with – the same candidates, – the same battle lines.

• However, the strategic implications of EC rules were better understood with respect to – the danger of withholding votes (which could defeat the winning party’s VP nominee); and – party advantage in manipulating the mode of selecting electors; • Madison to Monroe (1800):

“All agree that an election by districts would be best if it could be general, but while ten states choose either by their legislatures or by a general ticket

[so the dominant party wins all of a state’s electoral votes]

, it is folly or worse for the other six not to follow.”

The Election of 1800 (cont.)

• 1800 was almost as close as 1796 but just tipped the other way.

– Republicans won 73 electors vs. 65 for Federalists.

• Jefferson 73 • Burr • Adams • Pickney • Jay 73 65 64 1 • Since the Republicans failed to withhold one “Vice Presidential” electoral vote from Burr, the election was “thrown into House” to break the Jefferson-Burr tie.

– Note that one Federalist elector did withhold a vote from Pickney, so as to avoid a Adams-Pickney tie, in the event the Federalist won the most electors.

The Election of 1800 (cont.)

• While the Republicans had also taken control of Congress, – the newly elected Congress would not convene until late in 1801.

– This timetable would not be changed until the 20 th Amendment (1933). • So the Presidential election was thrown into the “lame duck” House elected in 1798, which was still controlled by the Federalists.

– However, the Republican controlled more state delegations than the Federalists.

– Sixteen states were now represented in the House.

• Votes from 9 states were required to elect a President. • Republicans controlled 8 state delegations.

• Federalists controlled 6 state delegations.

• Two state delegation were equally split.

– The House could choose only between the two tied candidates. – Federalists voted for Burr in order to deny Jefferson the presidency.

– The House deadlocked for 35 ballots: • 8 states for Jefferson, • 6 states for Burr, and • 2 states internally deadlocked and not voting.

The Election of 1800 (cont.)

• Ultimately, a few Federalists members abstained (thereby breaking the deadlocks within two state delegations) to end the House deadlock on 36 th ballot.

• The Federalists could have used an even more “hardball” tactic that would have both kept the election out of the House and Jefferson out of the Presidency: – The one Federalist elector who withheld a vote from Pickney could have cast it for Burr instead than Jay.

– Then Burr would have be elected President (and Jefferson would have continued as Vice President). • This was partisan background for the “midnight appointments” and

Marbury v. Madison

.”

The 12

th

Amendment

• Political scientists now understand that

single-winner

elections (like Presidential elections) tend to produce

two-candidate contests

and

two-party competition.

– This generalization is called

Duverger’s Law

.

– Clearly the original Electoral College could not readily accommodate contests between two party “tickets” (for President and Vice President).

• Congress proposed, and the states quickly ratified (in time for 1804 election), the 12 th Amendment. – Electors would now cast

separate designated

votes for President and Vice President.

– The required electoral vote majority for President (and for Vice President) would now be a simple majority of electoral voters cast (= number of electors).

– If no candidate receives the required majority for President, the House (still voting by state delegations) chooses from among the top

three

[vs. top five] candidates.

– If no candidate receives the required majority for Vice President, the Senate chooses from among the top

two

candidates.

The Transformation of the Electoral College

• By the 1830s, the Electoral College had been transformed into the kind of (essentially) automatic

vote counting system

we are familiar with today.

• Elements in this transformation: – a nationally uniform day for the casting of electoral votes (mid December, as established by the first Congress) – pledged (and faithful) electors (largely in effect by 1796); – the 12 th Amendment (ratified by 1804); – the popular election of electors (almost universal by 1832 and with much expanded electorates); – Popular election using the

general ticket

(“winner-take-all”) system, rather than from districts or otherwise; and – a nationwide Presidential election day (established by Congress in 1845); – a two-party system that effectively bypasses the House contingent election, since • if only two candidates win electoral votes, one or other must win a majority, • unless the number of electoral votes is even and there is a tie between the candidates.

The Election of 1824

• On the last point, the election of 1824 was the “exception that proved the rule.” • After 1800, the Federalist Party never regained control of either the Presidency or of Congress.

– The dominant Jeffersonian party began calling itself the Democratic – Republican Party.

– In 1820, President Monroe (Dem.-Rep.) was re-elected without any Federalist (or other) opposition.

• In 1824, the Dem.-Rep. Congressional Caucus nominated Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford.

• However, other ambitious (Dem.-Rep.) Presidential candidates saw no reason not to enter the Presidential election.

– Previously they would (almost always) have been deterred by the prospect of splitting the Democratic-Republican party, with the risk of thereby throwing the election to the nominee of the Federalist party.

– But now there was no Federalist party.

Lesson

: given two parties contesting single-winner elections, if one party disappears, the surviving party will split into multiple rival factions, which in due course will coalesce into a new two-party system.

The Election of 1824 (cont.)

• The four candidates were: John Quincy Adams (Secretary of State) Henry Clay (U.S. Representative and former Speaker) William Crawford (Secretary of the Treasury) Andrew Jackson (hero of the Battle of New Orleans and representative of the “common man”) • Presidential election results: Electoral Vote Popular Vote* Jackson 99 41% Adams 84 Crawford 31% 41 11% Clay 37 13% Others 0 4% * Bear in mind that six states still appointed electors and that the states in which electors were popularly elected varied considerably with respect to the extent of the franchise.

The Election of 1824 (cont.)

• Adams and Jackson represented opposite wings of the party, – while Clay was seen as a compromise candidate, i.e., almost everybody’s second choice.

• But Clay was squeezed out of third place in the electoral vote ranking by Crawford.

– Under the 12 th Amendment, the House could chose only from among top three candidates (in terms of electoral votes).

– Clay probably would have been elected president • if the House could still chose among the top five candidates; or • if Crawford had not been a candidate, – i.e., Crawford was a

spoiler

to Clay.

• Clay had great influence in the House.

– He detested Jackson and endorsed Adams.

• Adams (just) won on the first ballot (24 state delegations): Adams 13 Jackson 7 Crawford 4 – Adams subsequently appointed Clay Secretary of State.

– Jackson and his supporters denounced an alleged “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Clay.

Consequences of the1824 Election

• As political scientists would expect, the factionalized Democratic Republicans realigned into two rival factions that evolved into a new two-party system.

– Adams and Clay formed the new National Republican Party, which evolved into the Whig Party.

– Jackson formed the new Democratic Party.

• Two-party competition has been sustained ever since, – though with temporary splits in one or other party in individual elections.

– No subsequent election has been thrown into the House.

• However, in 1912 one of the two major parties split into rival factions, – each running its own Presidential candidate.

• The 1912 election indicates how, given a single-winner election, one party in a two-party system is penalized if it splits into rival factions, and – it thereby illustrates one major reason why Duverger’s Law generally holds.

The 1912 Presidential Election

• The chart shows the major party popular vote percentages throughout the 4 th Party System.

• Note that 1912 appears to be entirely un-exceptional (1916 is the exception)

• But in 1912 the Republican vote was split between Taft and Roosevelt, who were

spoilers

against each other.

• The Democrats picked up the pieces, with Wilson becoming the plurality PV winner.

– By 1916, the Republican split was healed and Wilson barely won re-election.

• The story is even more exaggerated when we look at electoral votes.

1912 (cont.)

Presidential Elections Today

• There have been 435 (HR) + 100 (Senate) + 3 (DC) = 538 electoral votes since the 23 rd Amendment was ratified in 1964.

– 270 electoral votes are required for election.

• Each

national

party

nominates

(in a way that will be sketched out) – one candidate for President and – one candidate for Vice President.

• Each

state

party

nominates

elector in each state.

a slate of candidates for Presidential – These elector candidates are

pledged

, and bound under party rules and/or state law, to cast their electoral votes for the party’s Presidential and VP nominees in the event they have the opportunity to do so. • On Presidential election day, voters in each state vote for one or other party’s slate of electors, on the basis of their preference for the candidates to whom the electors are pledged.

• Voters may be excused for thinking they are voting directly for President and Vice President.

Presidential Election Ballots

Presidential Elections Today (cont.)

• Whichever elector slate receives the most votes [

plurality voting

] in a state is elected and – all its members subsequently cast their electoral votes for the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to whom they are pledged.

• In mid-December, the Presidential electors meet in their respective state capitals and cast their electoral votes, – which are then certified and transmitted to Congress.

• In early January, the (new) Congress (elected at the same time as the Presidential electors, as a result of the 20 th Amendment) meets in joint session to count the electoral votes – The President of the Senate (who is the [possibly lame-duck] Vice President of the United States) presides and announces which candidates are respectively President-elect and Vice President elect.

• The new President and Vice President are sworn into office on Inauguration Day (January 20).

Presidential Elections Today (cont.)

• Almost always, we know on election night (or at least the next morning) – which party’s slate of electors carried each state, and therefore – how electoral votes will be cast in state capitals some seven weeks later [because electors are pledged and almost always faithful], and therefore – what the count of electoral votes will before the joint session of Congress in early January.

– Therefore, news organization can proclaim one candidate “President-elect” and another “Vice President elect” two months before they officially achieve that status.

• This is useful, because it gives the President-elect more time to draw up his list of Cabinet nominees, White House assistants, and other officials.

Presidential Elections Today (cont.)

• There are three possible circumstances in which the identity of the President-elect may not be know election night or the next morning: – if there is a disputed outcome in one or more states, and neither candidate has 270 electoral votes from the states with undisputed outcomes (e.g., 2000 and the disputed vote in Florida); – if each candidate wins 269 electoral votes, producing an electoral vote tie, which has been possible since the 23 rd Amendment resulted in an even number of electoral votes; or – if there is a significant third-party candidate, who wins enough electoral votes to deprive the leading candidate of the required majority of 270 electoral votes.

• In the second and third circumstances, the election will be thrown into the House of Representative and therefore will not be decided until January, – unless some electors decide to violate their pledges and switch their electoral votes to another candidate, giving that candidate 270 or more electoral votes.

Party Presidential Nominations

• The

Congressional Caucus

– Collapse of the caucus (1824) (1796-1820) • The invention of the

party national nominating convention

platform (1832) – State parties send delegations to a national convention to nominate a Presidential-Vice Presidential ticket and adopt a • The

party-dominant system

– Delegates and their votes are controlled by state and/or local party "bosses." – Strategic implications for ambitious Presidential candidates: there is only an “insider” strategy for seeking party nomination • court favor with party bosses; and • expect multi-ballot conventions, with deal-making (in “smoke-filled rooms”) between ballots.

(1832-1908)

Presidential Nominations (cont.)

• The

mixed system

(1912-1968): – the introduction of

Presidential primaries;

– plus national mass media etc.

– Strategic implications: there are now both "insider" vs. "outsider" strategies available; and • even “outsider” candidates can pick and chose which primaries to enter • Unless one “outsider” candidate sweeps the field, multi-ballot conventions (and deal-making) are still likely.

• The

candidate-dominant system

(1972-present) – Proliferation of primaries (and open caucuses, e.g., Iowa) – Strategic implications: now there is only an “outsider” strategy available, requiring • early entry; • contesting primaries everywhere (and therefore lots of $$$) • one-ballot “ratifying” conventions.

– “Frontloading” of primaries, but after 2008 Democratic contest frontloading looks less appealing.

Effective Presidential Selection

• “Democratizing” the Presidential selection system has pushed effective selection earlier and earlier.

• Who will be the next President?

– House election [“19 times out of 20”] – Electoral vote winner [two-party system] – Selection of electors [pledged electors] Jan. 6 Dec. 15 Nov. 5 • Who will be the party nominees?

– Conventions [party-dominant system] – Later primaries – Early primaries [mixed system] [candidate-dom. system] July-Aug.

Late spring Winter/early spring*

*

except Dems in 2008 and Reps in 1976