ELECTORAL COLLEGE



AP US History Worksheet #15

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

HOW DOES IT WORK?

|Tuesday in Nov. |Dec. 15th |January 20th |

| | | |

|THE PEOPLE VOTE |THE ELECTORS VOTE |PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION |

|Each state is given a number of electoral votes “equal to the |The electors will meet in Washington to have their |The new president is sworn at the foot of the |

|whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State |votes counted. A list of each name and the number of |capitol building by the Supreme Court Chief |

|may be entitled in the Congress” On election day, voters are |votes will be signed and certified and sent to the |Justice. |

|actually voting for Electoral College members who promise to vote|President of the Senate. Then, in front of a joint | |

|for the candidates of their respective political parties. In all |session of Congress, the President of the Senate opens|"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will |

|but two states the party with the greatest number of votes |the vote counts from each state. These are totaled, |faithfully execute the office of President of the |

|receives all the electoral votes for that state, even if no |and the President is the person with the most votes, |United States, and will to the best of my ability,|

|candidate gets a majority. In order to win, a candidate must |if the count is a majority. |preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of |

|receive 270 votes, one more than half of the total of 538 | |the United States." |

|electoral votes. | | |

In Case there is NO WINNER?

If there was a tie, then the members of the House of Representatives immediately take a vote and that winner was the President. If there was no tie, and no majority, then the top five vote-getters were voted on by the House as above. When the vote devolved to the House, two-thirds of all states must have had at least one Representative present for the vote to proceed. The Representatives present from each state voted as a single state. The winner had to win by a majority of the states.

What is the deal with these “electors”?

• No constitutional provision or federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state. But some state laws provide that so-called faithless electors be subject to fines or be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The U.S. Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged. Today it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate.

Electoral College in US HISTORY: A Series of Unusual Events!

(1) Election of 1800: The vote was broken by the House of Representatives between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr who had an equal number of electoral votes (73). John Adams had 65 electoral votes as the incumbent. The House of Representatives broke the tie, electing Jefferson.

(2) Election of 1824: Defeat of the Most Popular Candidate! (3) Election of 1912: Three-way Race!

|Candidate |Popular Vote |Electoral Vote |

|Andrew Jackson |153,544 |99 |

|John Quincy Adams |108,740 |88 |

|William H. Crawford |46,618 |41 |

|Henry Clay |47,136 |37 |

|Candidate |Popular Vote |Electoral Vote |

|Woodrow Wilson |6,296,547 |435 |

|Theodore Roosevelt |4,118,571 |88 |

|William H. Taft |3,486,720 |8 |

(4) Election of 2000: Defeat of the More Popular Candidate – Bush Vs. Gore

PROS AND CONS

Opponents of the Electoral College point to Bush as a reason to get rid of the current system — he’s president even though he lost the popular vote. Since the distribution of electoral votes tends to over-represent people in rural states, opponents argue that the system fails to accurately reflect the popular will. This over-representation occurs because a state’s electors are based upon the number of representatives it has in the House (determined by population) plus the number of representatives it has in the Senate (two, no matter the state’s population, giving more weight to small states.) Some argue that the winner-take-all mechanism in 48 states discourages independent or third party candidates from running because it would be difficult for them to get many electoral votes.

Proponents of the Electoral College system like the fact that a president must have a wide geographic distribution of support to win, believing this contributes to the cohesiveness of the country. They think the College helps minority interests because their votes could make a difference in the state, whereas the national popular majority would probably dilute them in a direct election. Some like that the Electoral College encourages a two-party system, because it forces candidates to move to the center of public opinion to get elected. In a direct election dozens of political parties, many with extreme, fringe ideas, would be encouraged to crop up to prevent a candidate from winning a popular majority. One of these parties could win the run-off and we would have more radical changes in policies from one administration to the next.

After the 2000 election, there was a lot of talk about doing away with this system, but it's unlikely this will happen anytime soon. To do so, we would need an amendment to the Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote from Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of the states for it to become law. Small, rural states probably wouldn't support any such amendment because it would give them less of a voice.

In the end, the system works pretty well. For the past two hundred years, the Electoral College has picked a president, most of the time without incident. While not without its faults, the College has withstood the test of time, allowing peaceful elections to continue through tumultuous world wars, the civil rights struggle and economic depressions. It’s a testament to the founding fathers' foresight that this ancient system of compromise continues to thrive.

SWING STATE STATS

According to the Caucus blog, polls this week in swing states are showing volatility. There are 11 swing states political analysts often mention as key to the 2012 presidential election. Barack Obama is leading Mitt Romney in four and Romney leading in three, with the candidates tied in Florida. Here are some demographics on the swing states that offer insight into their election influence.

Latino Voters: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says Latino voters may determine the course of the vote in Colorado, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. In 2008, Hispanics turned out in big numbers to vote for Obama. In 2012, there are more Hispanic voters. In Florida and Nevada, Hispanics comprise more than 15 percent of the eligible voter population. In Colorado, it's 13.7 percent. Both Obama and Republican contender Mitt Romney have been courting the Hispanic vote.

Unemployment Rate: The state of the economy has been a dominant theme in this election cycle. Unemployment is particularly high in three swing states: Nevada has the highest in the nation at 11.6 percent, North Carolina. 9.4, Florida 8.6, compared to a national rate of 8.2 percent. The remaining swing states have unemployment rates below the national rate. These include Pennsylvania at 7.4 percent, Ohio 7.3 percent, Virginia 5.6 percent, Wisconsin 6.8 percent, Iowa 5.1 percent, New Hampshire 5.0 percent, and New Mexico 6.7 percent.

Gender Gap: Obama has been leading Romney among women voters in swing states for months. In May, USA Today reported a 20-point gender gap, larger than that of the 2008 election. According to ABC News, Obama is targeting women in his swing state advertising, suggesting he is a strong supporter of women and families.

According to Forbes, women historically outvoted men in each of the 2012 battleground states. In 2008, the number by which female voters exceeded male voters at the polls in Virginia, was 369,000; North Carolina, 358,000; Ohio, 275,000; Pennsylvania, 419,000; Florida, 597,000.; Wisconsin., 81,000; Iowa, 102,000; Colorado, 62,000; New Mexico 56,000; and New Hampshire, 34,000.

Colorado: President Obama’s victory in Colorado was among his most prized accomplishments in 2008, after the state had voted reliably Republican in eight of the last nine presidential elections. A wariness of big government could test Mr. Obama in the Rocky Mountain West, but Mitt Romney faces his own challenge in appealing to independents and women, whose support was critical in a pair of Democratic wins in races for Senate and governor in Colorado in 2010.

Florida: The most famous battleground state in America could once again earn that title. President Obama carried the state in 2008, but a wave of home foreclosures and a sour economy has complicated his path to an easy victory. A growing number of conservative retirees offer Mitt Romney hope, but the outcome could hinge on whether he can win over Hispanic voters, particularly younger Cuban Americans in southern Florida and Puerto Ricans in central Florida.

Iowa: President Obama has a sentimental attachment to Iowa for delivering his first victory in his improbable primary race four years ago. But the state presents a far bigger challenge this time. Mitt Romney and the full Republican field spent months attacking Mr. Obama in the Iowa caucus campaign this year, which has kept the president’s poll ratings lower than other nearby states. In a close general election, these six electoral votes are critical to both sides.

North Carolina: Democrats selected Charlotte as the site of their national convention, with party leaders hoping to generate enough enthusiasm among voters to help repeat President Obama’s narrow victory in 2008. Mitt Romney had hoped to shore up the state by now, but both sides continue to spend money on television advertising. The state has a long history of voting Republican, but the race is now a tossup because Democrats have kept the contest competitive into the closing stretch.

New Hampshire: The White House has paid close attention to New Hampshire, sending Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to the state repeatedly to make an argument against Mitt Romney, who has a vacation home in New Hampshire and is seen as a favorite son. The voters have an independent streak, but generally oppose what they perceive as government intrusion in their lives. It could be one of Mr. Romney’s best opportunities to win a state that Mr. Obama carried.

Nevada: The economic outlook in Nevada has declined considerably since President Obama won the state four years ago and has been slow to rebound. With the nation’s highest rates of home foreclosure and unemployment, Mitt Romney has a ready-made laboratory to argue that policies of the Obama administration have not worked. A large Mormon population also could bolster Mr. Romney, but Mr. Obama is hoping his appeal to Hispanic and lower-income voters will deliver the state again.

Ohio: There are few credible paths to the White House for Mitt Romney without winning Ohio, a well-established bellwether. The state has accurately picked winning presidential candidates in the last 12 elections. A steadily improving economy could help President Obama carry the state again. Large portions of the state remain conservative, but Republicans worry that Democrats may be motivated by a victory last year in which voters struck down a law restricting public workers’ rights to bargain collectively.

Virginia: As one of the nation’s newest battleground states, Virginia will be center stage in President Obama’s fight for re-election. The state is deeply conservative, but population shifts in Northern Virginia have changed the state’s political demographics. Mitt Romney’s argument against the expansion of government is complicated by the number of government workers in Virginia. The president carried the state by seven percentage points in 2008, but both campaigns agree the race will be closer this year.

Wisconsin: The addition of Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin to the Republican ticket does not guarantee victory over President Obama, but it cements the state’s role as a true battleground. Democrats carried the state in the last six presidential contests – often narrowly – but Republican groups are advertising to try to push the Obama campaign to spend money. Still, Mitt Romney is at the top of the ticket and must show that he can make his own case here.

-----------------------

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical.

Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. The Electoral College was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.

[pic]

Today's Polls- Oct 11, 2012: Using this information, make a campaign strategy for the final month… Where do you go if you are Obama and Romney? Where do you not go if you are Obama and Romney? What would your strategy be in each state?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

GOVERNOR ROMNEY:

Did the founding fathers get it right? Do you believe in the Electoral College system? Justify your answer through facts

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download