U.S. Politics: Analysis and Opinion

U.S. Presidential Election Rules and the Electoral Map

Posted by John Publius Jr. on June 21st, 2008 — in General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog

Reference: see Wikipedia’s article - Electoral College (United States) for more information.

The rules for the election of the President of the United States are quite simple and clear. Unlike the rules of political parties, these general election rules are laws based on the U.S. Constitution and Amendments.

The Electoral College has 538 Electoral Votes:
The President is NOT elected by the popular vote, but rather by the electoral votes of the “electoral college”.

All fifty states plus Washington, D.C. have at least three electoral votes. The total number of electoral votes is 538. This is known as the “electoral college”. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes, which is the “magic number” of 270. (538 divided by 2 equals 269, and 269 plus 1 equals 270).

The presidential election focus between now and November 4th is on analyzing the electoral map and attaining this number.

Below is the electoral map of the 2004 Presidential Election:

(See our Free 2008 Presidential Electoral Vote Calculator Map. This includes a point-and-click interactive map that enables you to explore election scenarios. The map shows the 2008 red, blue, and toss-up states based on recent polls. You can also quickly see the electoral map results of the last five presidential elections.)

The number of electoral votes for each state is based on adding the number of U.S. Senators (always two) plus the number of U.S. Representatives, which varies according to population (each state has at least one Representative, and California has the most with 53). For example, Missouri has two U.S. Senators and nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives, so Missouri has a total of 11 electoral votes. Washington, D.C. gets 3 electoral votes based on the Twenty-third Amendment adopted in 1961.

Winner-Take-All vs. Maine and Nebraska Exceptions:
Each state legislature determines the rules for how the electoral votes of the state are awarded to candidates. All the states and Washington, D.C. have a “winner-take-all” system, except for Maine and Nebraska. Under “winner-take-all”, the candidate who gets the most votes (the “popular vote”) in the state wins all of the electoral votes of the state.

Maine and Nebraska award the electoral votes based on each congressional district. Maine has four congressional districts and Nebraska has five. The candidate who wins the most votes in a congressional district gets the one electoral vote for that district. Therefore, Maine and Nebraska could split their electoral votes among the candidates, but this has never actually happened.

What if no candidate wins the majority of electoral votes?
If no candidates wins the majority of electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives votes on who will be the next President. This can happen and did happen in 1824.

There is an important difference between who wins the most votes and a “majority”. A majority is 50% plus one. Sometimes a candidate wins the most votes but does not win a majority, especially when more than two parties have strong candidates. This is called a “plurality”, not a “majority”.

In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most electoral votes, but won only a plurality, not a majority. Jackson also won the popular vote (which never officially matters). The decision went to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the House elected President John Quincy Adams. This was one of the most controversial elections in U.S. history and led to the emergency of the Democratic Party as the first “modern” political party in the U.S. In 1828 Andrew Jackson won the presidency with a majority of electoral votes.

The presidential elections of 1824, 1876, and 2000 were especially controversial and well worth studying.

The Electoral College must Certify the Election
Technically, the Electoral College is comprised of 538 people who are designated officials representing the electoral votes from the fifty states and Washington, D.C. These 538 representatives must officially certify the election. They are “expected” to vote in accordance with the electoral vote of their states (or congressional district in the cases of Maine and Nebraska). However, these 538 electors legally can vote for whomever they wish.

This electoral college body has never overturned the electoral map results, but this possibility exists. If you look at Minnesota in the map above, you will see a little circle with the number “1″. All ten of Minnesota’s electoral votes were “expected” to go to John Kerry, however, one of Minnesota’s electors voted for John Edwards instead of Kerry.

Implications of the General Election Rules: Red States vs. Blue States:
General election strategy necessarily focuses on attaining the 270 magic number. In recent presidential elections, the electoral map has been fairly static. News media have standardized the map discussion by always displaying Republican states in red and Democratic states in blue.

The map (above) of the 2004 election is essentially the “strategic starting point” for the 2008 election between John McCain and Barack Obama. Many states are considered “solidly red” or “solidly blue” (a.k.a., “safe” states). Recently, Republican candidates have won most of the Southern states and also the Western states between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Coast states. Democratic candidates have won most of the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Pacific Coast states.

General election campaign strategy focuses on trying to win the “swing states”. These may be states that recently voted for the Democratic candidate, but in other recent elections voted for the Republican. Some swing states consistently voted for one party, but only by very narrow margins. Also, some states change over time and come into “play”. Demographic changes and other internal political changes can move a state’s allegiance from one party to another. Any state that is in “play” for whatever reason is a swing state and also called a “battleground state”.

For the 2000 and 2004 elections, the following states were among the swing states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire. Most analysts expect these same states to be battleground states in 2008.

Barack Obama’s campaign hopes to put additional states in play. The Southwest may be changing enough for the Democrats to win at least one of these: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada. Also, Obama hopes to win at least one of these Southern states: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and maybe others. Obama could also win one or more Western states, such as South Dakota or Kansas.

John McCain’s campaign strategy involves winning most of the swing states from the last two elections and also trying to put Oregon and New Jersey into play.

Visit Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. This is a great resource and shows the electoral map of every presidential election in history and includes many details.

Quick History Lesson - the Election of 1876:
The Samuel Tilden-Rutherford Hayes election of 1876 was the ultimate political controversy with four disputed states, including Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. With no agreement on how to count the electoral votes of the disputed four states, Tilden had a plurality but not a majority. Think of the Gore vs. Bush Florida controversy in the 2000 election, then multiply it by four. The result was the infamous “Compromise of 1877″ or “Tilden-Hayes Compromise”, worked out via back-room deals. Republican Hayes was given the presidency over Democrat Tilden in exchange for a railroad in the South and Southwest. Most importantly, the Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction, thus opening the flood gates to extend Jim Crow laws denying civil rights and voting rights for African-Americans.

Sphere: Related Content

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 21st, 2008 at 9:50 am and is filed under General Election Rules, Barack Obama, John McCain, Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Comments »

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

You must enter the code below in order to submit your comment.

Characters in the image above (required)