Order Code RL32611

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

The Electoral College:

How It Works in Contemporary
Presidential Elections

September 28, 2004

Thomas H. Neale
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

 The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary
Presidential Elections

Summary
When Americans vote for a President and Vice President, they actually vote for
presidential electors, known collectively as the electoral college. It is these electors,
chosen by the people, who elect the chief executive. The Constitution assigns each
state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate and House of
Representatives delegations; at present, the number of electors per state ranges from
three to 55, for a total of 538, a figure which includes three electors for the District
of Columbia. Anyone may serve as an elector, except for Members of Congress, and
persons holding offices of “Trust or Profit” under the Constitution. In each
presidential election year, a group (ticket or slate) of candidates for elector is
nominated by political parties and other groups in each state, usually at a state party
convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than
the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the
election held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 2, 2004).

In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the
party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning
the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general
ticket, system. Maine and Nebraska use the district system, under which two electors
are chosen on a statewide, at-large basis, and one is elected in each congressional
district. A second alternative, the proportional system, would award electors to
presidential tickets in direct proportion to the percentage votes they received in a
particular state. Electors assemble in their respective states on Monday after the
second Wednesday in December (December 13, 2004). They are pledged and
expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. Separate ballots
are cast for President and Vice President, after which the electoral college ceases to
exist for another four years. The electoral vote results are counted and declared at a
joint session of Congress, held on January 6 of the year succeeding the election. A
majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win. Constitutional
amendments to abolish or reform the electoral college system are regularly
introduced in Congress. For information on legislative activity in the current
Congress, please see CRS Report RL32612, The Electoral College: Reform
Proposals in the 108th Congress, by Thomas H. Neale.

A proposal to establish the proportional system in Colorado will appear on that

state’s ballot on November 2, 2004. If the voters of that state approve it, and if it is
found to be constitutional, Colorado’s electoral votes for the current election could
be allocated according to this plan.

This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents
Constitutional Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Electoral College Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Allocation of Electors and Electoral Votes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Popular Election of Electors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Electors: Ratifying the Voters’ Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The General Ticket System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Alternative Systems: The District and Proportional Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Nominating Elector-Candidates: Diverse State Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 6
Joint Tickets: One Vote for President and Vice President . . . . . . . . . . . 6
General Election Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Electors Convene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congress Counts, Ascertains, and Declares the Vote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Current Developments: The Proposed Colorado Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

List of Tables
Table 1. Electoral Vote Allocation by Jurisdiction, 2004-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 The Electoral College: How It Works in
Contemporary Presidential Elections

Constitutional Origins
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered several methods of electing
the President, including selection by Congress, by the governors of the states, by the
state legislatures, by a special group of Members of Congress chosen by lot, and by
direct popular election. Late in the convention, the matter was referred to the
Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, which devised the electoral college
system in its original form.1 This plan, which met with widespread approval by the
delegates, was incorporated into the final document with only minor changes. It
sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular
participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage
in the process, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress for election and
reelection, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation.

The Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the combined
total of its Senate and House of Representatives membership. The electors were to
be chosen by the states “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....”
(Article II, section 1). Qualifications for the office were broad: the only persons
prohibited from serving as electors are Senators, Representatives, and persons
“holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States.”2 In order to forestall
partisan intrigue and manipulation, the electors were required to assemble in their
respective states and cast their ballots as state units, rather than meet at a central
location. At least one of the candidates for whom the electors vote was required to
be an inhabitant of another state. A majority of electoral votes was necessary to elect,
a requirement intended to insure broad acceptance of a winning candidate, while
election by the House was provided as a default method in the event of electoral
college deadlock. Finally, Congress was empowered to set nationwide dates for
choice and meeting of electors. All the foregoing structural elements of the electoral
college system remain in effect currently. The original method of electing the

1
Although the term is not found in the Constitution, the electors have been known
collectively as the electoral college since the early days of the republic, an expression that
may be misleading, since the college has no continuing existence, never meets in plenary
session, and ceases to exist immediately after the electors have performed their function.
2
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1. In practice, this formulation also prohibits any
person working for the federal government in either a civilian or military capacity from
serving as an elector.
 CRS-2

President and Vice President, however, proved unworkable, and was replaced by the
12th Amendment, ratified in 1804.3

The Electoral College Today4

Notwithstanding the founders’ efforts, the electoral college system almost never
functioned as they intended, but, as with so many constitutional provisions, the
document prescribed only the system’s basic elements, leaving ample room for
development. As the republic evolved, so did the electoral college system, and, by
the late 19th century, the following range of constitutional, federal and state legal, and
political elements of the contemporary system were in place.

Allocation of Electors and Electoral Votes. The Constitution gives each

state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate membership (two
for each state) and House of Representatives delegation (currently ranging from one
to 53, depending on population). The 23rd Amendment provides an additional three
electors to the District of Columbia. The total number of electoral votes per state,
based on the 2000 census, ranges from three (for seven states and the District of
Columbia) to 55 for California, the most populous state. Table 1 provides current
electoral vote allocations by state and D.C. These totals are adjusted following each
decennial census in a process called reapportionment, which reallocates the number
of Members of the House of Representatives to reflect changing rates of population
growth (or decline) among the states. Thus, a state may gain or lose electors
following reapportionment, as it gains or loses Representatives, but it always retains
its two “senatorial” electors, and at least one more reflecting its House delegation.
The current allocation among the states is in effect for the presidential elections of
2004 and 2008; electoral votes will next be reallocated following the 2010 census,
and will be in effect for the 2012 election.

Popular Election of Electors. Today, all presidential electors are chosen

by the voters, but, in the early republic, more than half the states chose electors in
their legislatures, thus eliminating any direct involvement by the voting public in the
election. This practice changed rapidly after the turn of the 19th century, however,
as the right to vote was extended to an ever-wider segment of the population. As the
electorate grew, so did the number of persons able to vote for presidential electors,
to its present limit of all eligible citizens age 18 or older. The tradition that the voters
choose the presidential electors thus became an early and permanent feature of the
electoral college system; while the states theoretically retain the constitutional right

3
Under the original system, each elector cast two votes for President (for different
candidates), and no vote for Vice President. The candidate receiving the most votes was
elected President, provided it was a majority of the number of electors (not electoral votes).
The runner up became Vice President.
4
For a list of electors in the presidential election of 2000, consult the National Archives at
[http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/members_2000.html]. For
information on proposals to reform the electoral college, see CRS Report RL30804, The
Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, by L. Paige Whitaker
and Thomas H. Neale; and CRS Report RL32612, The Electoral College: Reform Proposals
in the 108th Congress, by Thomas H. Neale.
 CRS-3

to choose some other method, this would be extremely unlikely under normal
circumstances.

The existence of the presidential electors and the duties of the electoral college
are so little noted in contemporary society that most American voters believe that
they vote directly for President and Vice President on election day. In fact, they are
actually voting for a slate of candidates for the office of elector nominated by a party
or other political group, and pledged to support the candidates of that party.
Although candidates for elector may be well known persons, such as governors, state
legislators, or other state and local officials, they generally receive little recognition
as electors. In fact, in most states, the names of individual electors do not appear
anywhere on the ballot; instead only those of the various presidential and vice
presidential candidates appear, often prefaced by the words “electors for.” Moreover,
electoral votes are commonly referred to as having “been awarded” to the winning
candidate, as if no human beings were involved in the process.

The Electors: Ratifying the Voters’ Choice. Presidential electors in

contemporary elections are expected, and, in many cases pledged, to vote for the
candidates of the party that nominated them. While there is considerable evidence
that the founders assumed they would be independent, weighing the merits of
competing presidential candidates, the electors have been regarded as agents of the
public will since the first decade under the Constitution.5 They are expected to vote
for the candidates of the party that nominated them.

Faithless Electors. Notwithstanding the tradition that electors are

bound to vote for the candidates of the party that nominated them, individual electors
have sometimes broken their commitment, voting for a different candidate or
candidates than those to whom they were pledged; they are known as “faithless” or
“unfaithful” electors. Although 24 states seek to prohibit faithless electors by a
variety of methods, including pledges and the threat of fines or criminal action, most
constitutional scholars believe that electors, once chosen, remain constitutionally free
agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and
Vice President.6 Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (since the 20th
century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988, and one blank
ballot cast in 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election.

The General Ticket System. While the Constitution is silent on the formula
for awarding each state’s electoral votes, 48 states and the District of Columbia
currently use the “general ticket” or “winner-take-all” system. Under this
arrangement, each political party or group or independent candidacy eligible to be on
the ballot nominates a group (“ticket” or “slate”) of elector-candidates equal in
number to the state’s total number of electors. Voters then cast a single vote for the

5
Neal Peirce and Lawrence D. Longley, The People’s President: The Electoral College in
American History and the Direct Vote Alternative, rev. ed. (New Haven, CT, 1981: Yale U.
Press), pp. 24, 96-101.
6
U.S. Congress, Senate, The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and
Interpretation, S. Doc. 99-16, 99th Cong., 1st sess., prepared by the Congressional Research
Service (Washington: GPO, 1987), pp. 457-460.
 CRS-4

ticket of electors pledged to the presidential and vice presidential candidates of their
choice; the ticket receiving the most votes statewide (a plurality is sufficient) is
elected. These people become the electors for that state.

This is how the general ticket system works in a hypothetical state, State A.
State A currently has 10 electoral votes, reflecting its two Senators and eight
Representatives. The two equally hypothetical major parties, “X” and “Y” each
nominate 10 persons for the office of presidential elector, pledged to the presidential
and vice presidential candidates of their party. Voters go to the polls and cast a
single vote for the ticket of party electors of their choice. Party A’s slate of elector-
candidates receives 51% of the popular vote; Party B’s slate receives 49%.
Notwithstanding the closeness of the results, all of Party A’s electors are chosen, and
Party A’s presidential and vice presidential candidates normally receive all the state’s
electoral votes. Party B gains no electoral votes.

The general ticket system has been favored since the 19th century, as it tends to
magnify the winning candidates’ victory margin within states, and generally
guarantees a national electoral college majority for the winners. It has been criticized
on the grounds that it effectively negates the votes for the runners up.

Alternative Systems: The District and Proportional Plans. Two

alternative methods for awarding electoral votes which pass the test of
constitutionality have long been available to the states. They have historically been
promoted as avoiding the alleged failings of the general ticket system.7

The District Plan. The first is the district plan or system, which has been
adopted by Maine and Nebraska. Under the district system, two electors are chosen
on a statewide, at-large basis (representing the two “senatorial electors” allotted to
each state regardless of population), and one is elected in each congressional district.8
Each voter still casts a single vote for President and Vice President, but the votes are
counted twice: first on a statewide basis, with the two at-large elector-candidates who
win the most votes (a plurality) elected en bloc, and then again in each district, where
the district elector-candidate winning the most votes in each district is elected.

This is how the district system might work in State A. Assume that Party X
again receives 51% of the statewide vote, and Party 49%. Party X’s candidates for
the two statewide (or senatorial) elector offices are thus elected. Assume also that
Party X receives a plurality or majority of the popular vote in five of State A’s
congressional districts, while Party Y wins three of the districts. Under the district

7
For information on how electoral votes would have been allocated under the district and
proportional plans in the presidential elections of 1992, 1996, and 2000, please consult CRS
congressional distribution memorandum Alternative Methods to Allocate the Electoral Vote:
The Winner Take All, Proportional, and District Systems Compared Using 1992, 1996, and
2000 Data, by David C. Huckabee. Available to Members of Congress and congressional
staff from the author.
8
Some versions of the district plan would use ad hoc presidential election districts to award
these votes, rather than congressional districts, but both Maine and Nebraska, which use the
district system, tally their votes by congressional district.
 CRS-5

plan, the “district” electoral votes would be similarly awarded, so that Party X would
receive seven electoral votes, reflecting the statewide electors and the five
congressional districts it won, while Party Y would receive the three electors that
reflected its congressional district majorities.

The claimed advantage of the district system is that it more accurately reflects
differences in support in various parts of a state, and does not necessarily
“disenfranchise” voters who picked the losing ticket. For instance, a state that has
one or more large cities and a large rural and suburban population with differing
political preferences and voting patterns might well split its electoral vote under the
district system. Opponents suggest that the district system, with its division of
electoral votes within states, would more frequently lead to deadlocked elections in
which no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes. Perhaps ironically,
however, neither Maine nor Nebraska has split its electoral vote during the time the
district system has been in place. In every presidential election, the overall winners
also gained the most votes in each congressional district.

The Proportional Plan. The other commonly proposed option is the

proportional plan or system, which has never been adopted by a state, but which will
be the subject of a proposed Colorado constitutional amendment that will be decided
at the November 2, 2004 general election. For further information on the Colorado
amendment, see under “Current Developments” later in this report. The proportional
plan allocates electors and electoral votes in direct proportion to the number of votes
gained by each state. Unlike the district plan, it does not account for geographical
voting patterns, but allocates electors on a purely statewide basis. Two variations of
the proportional plan exist: the strict proportional plan, which would allocate
electoral votes to thousands of electoral votes, that is to the third decimal point, and
the rounded proportional plan or system, which would use some method of rounding
to allocate only whole electoral votes.

This is how the rounded proportional plan might operate in State A. Party X,
once again, receives 51% of the popular vote, and Party Y receives 49%. When these
totals are rounded, Party X would be awarded five electors, and Party Y would also
gain five electors.9

Proponents of the proportional system argue that this is the fairest plan, since
it most accurately reflects in its elector/electoral vote allocation the preferences of the
voters, acting as a statewide political community. The also note that it would provide
recognition for new- or third-party candidates that achieve a substantial level of
support in a state. Opponents suggest that, like the district system, the proportional
plan would more frequently lead to deadlocked elections in which no candidate
receives a majority of electoral votes.

9
Given that the strict proportional plan, by providing for fractions of electoral votes, would
almost certainly require a U.S. constitutional amendment, and since the proposed Colorado
constitutional amendment would establish a rounded proportional system, the strict
proportional plan allocation of electoral votes has not been included in this hypothesis.
 CRS-6

Nominating Elector-Candidates: Diverse State Procedures.

Nomination of elector-candidates is another of the many aspects of this system left
to state and political party preferences. Most states prescribe one of two methods:
in 34 states candidates for presidential elector are nominated by state party
conventions, while 10 states mandate nomination by the state party’s central
committee. The remainder uses a variety of methods, including nomination by the
governor (on recommendation of party committees), by primary election, and by the
party’s presidential nominee.

Joint Tickets: One Vote for President and Vice President. General
election ballots, which are regulated by state election laws and authorities, offer
voters joint candidacies for President and Vice President for each political party or
other group. Thus, voters cast a single vote for electors pledged to the joint ticket of
the party they represent. They cannot effectively vote for a President from one party
and a Vice President from another, unless their state provides for write-in votes.

General Election Day. Elections for all federal elected officials are held on
the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in even-numbered years; presidential
elections are held in every year divisible by four (November 2, 2004) for the next
presidential election). Congress selected this day in 1845 (5 Stat. 721); previously,
states held elections on different days between September and November, a practice
that sometimes led to multiple voting across state lines, and other fraudulent
practices. By tradition, November was chosen because the harvest was in, and
farmers were able to take the time needed to vote. Tuesday was selected because it
gave a full day’s travel between Sunday, which was widely observed as a strict day
of rest, and election day.10 Travel was also easier throughout the north during
November, before winter had set in.

The Electors Convene. The 12th Amendment requires electors to meet “in
their respective states....” This provision was intended to deter manipulation of the
election by having the state electoral colleges meet simultaneously, but keeping them
separate. Congress sets the date on which the electors meet (3 U.S.C. 7), which is
currently the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 13,
2004). The electors almost always meet in the state capital, usually in the capitol
building or state house itself. They vote “by ballot”11 separately for President and
Vice President (at least one of the candidates must be from another state). The
results are then endorsed, and copies are sent to the following officials: the Vice
President of the United States (in his capacity as President of the Senate); the
secretary of state of their state; the Archivist of the United States; and the judge of
the federal district court of the district in which the electors met (3 U.S.C. 11). The
electors then adjourn, and the electoral college ceases to exist until the next
presidential election.

10
In most rural areas, the only polling place was at the county seat, frequently a journey of
many miles on foot or horseback.
11
12th Amendment; this provision is interpreted to require paper ballots for President and
Vice President.
 CRS-7

Congress Counts, Ascertains, and Declares the Vote. The final step
in the presidential election process (aside from the presidential inaugural on January
20) is the counting, ascertainment, and declaration of the electoral votes in
Congress.12 The House of Representatives and Senate meet in joint session in the
House chamber on January 6 of the year following the presidential election, at 1:00
P.M.13 No debate is allowed in the joint session. The Vice President, who presides
in his capacity as President of the Senate, opens the electoral vote certificates from
each state, in alphabetical order. He then passes the certificates to four tellers (vote
counters), two appointed by each house, who announce the results. The votes are
then counted, and the results are announced by the Vice President. The candidates
receiving a majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) are declared the winners
by the Vice President, an action that constitutes “a sufficient declaration of the
persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the States” (3 U.S.C. 15).14

Objections to State Electoral Vote Returns.15 Objections may be

offered to both individual electoral votes and state returns as a whole. Objections
must be filed in writing, and be signed by one Senator and one Representative. If an
objection is received, and determined to be valid, then the electoral vote count
session is recessed. The Senate returns immediately to its chamber, and the two
houses of Congress consider the objections separately. By law, these sessions cannot
last more than two hours, and no member of either house may speak for more than
five minutes. At the end of this period, the houses vote separately to agree or
disagree with the objection. The Senate then returns to the House chamber, and the
joint session reconvenes. The decisions of the two houses are announced. If both
houses agree to the objection, then the electoral vote or votes in question are not
counted. Otherwise, the vote or votes stand as submitted, and are counted as such.16

Current Developments: The Proposed Colorado Amendment

On November 2, 2004, voters in Colorado will cast ballots on a proposed state
constitutional amendment17 that would establish a “rounded” version of the
proportional system which would be effective with the current election. That is, if
the amendment passes, and is not found unconstitutional, it would provide

12
3 U.S.C. 15-18.
13
Congress occasionally sets a different date for the electoral vote count session,
particularly in years when January 6 falls on a Sunday.
14
If there is no majority, due to a tie or division of the electoral vote among three or more
candidates, the President is elected in the House of Representatives, and the Vice President
in the Senate by the contingent election process. For further information, see CRS Report
RS20300, Election of the President and Vice President by Congress: Contingent Election,
by Thomas H. Neale.
15
3 U.S.C. 15.
16
For information on efforts to file objections to electoral vote returns from Florida at the
2001 electoral vote count session, please consult CRS congressional distribution
memorandum, Congressional Objections to Electoral Votes for President, by Jack Maskell,
available to Members of Congress and staff from the author.
17
Amendment 36.
 CRS-8

proportional allocation of Colorado’s presidential electors for the current, 2004,

election. If so, it could have a serious impact on the election outcome, and might
lead to challenges as to its constitutionality that could further result in prolonged
post-election legal struggle.

Colorado is among the 18 states that provide for the proposal and approval of
amendments to their state constitutions by popular vote. In order to place an
amendment on the ballot in Colorado, registered voters equal in number to 5% of the
number of votes cast for the office of State Secretary of State at the last election must
sign petitions. The amendment is then placed on the ballot at the next general
election; approval by a majority of those voting is required for passage.18 On August
13, 2004, Colorado’s Secretary of State announced that the proposed amendment had
gained sufficient voter signatures to qualify for inclusion on the ballot at the
November 2 general election.19

The amendment would allocate electoral votes and electors based on the popular
proportional share of the total statewide ballots cast for each presidential ticket. The
percentage of each ticket’s vote would then be multiplied by Colorado’s electoral
vote total, nine. These figures would then be rounded to the nearest whole number
of electors and electoral votes, but any ticket that did not receive at least one vote
under this method would be eliminated from the total. If the sum of whole electoral
votes derived from this computation were to be greater than nine, then the ticket
receiving at least one whole electoral vote, but fewest popular votes, would have its
electoral vote total reduced by one. This process would continue until the computed
allocation of votes reached nine. Conversely, if the sum of whole electoral votes
awarded after rounding the percentages of popular votes were less than nine, then
such additional electoral votes as necessary to bring the number up to nine would be
allocated to the ticket receiving the most popular votes, until all nine electoral votes
were so allocated. In the event of a popular and electoral vote allocation tie (i.e.,
Candidates A and B each receiving 4.5 electoral votes), then the Secretary of State
would determine by lot who would receive the evenly split electoral vote.20

The amendment includes several additional features.

! In Section 1(f), it states that the voters “by approving this initiative
... understand, desire, and expect that the popular selection of
presidential electors is intended to apply retroactively and thus
determine the manner in which our state’s presidential electors are
chosen and our state’s votes are cast for the general election of
2004.” The apparent retroactive nature of this requirement might be
subject to legal challenge, calling into question whether the

18
Council of State Governments, The Book of the States, 2004 edition, vol. 36 (Lexington:
KY, The Council of State Governments, 2004), p. 14.
19
USA Today.com, “Colorado Weighs Proportional Electoral Votes, Aug. 16, 2004. at
[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/colorado/2004-08-16-colo-
electoral_x.htm] , visited Sept. 3, 2004.
20
Proposed Colorado Amendment 36, § 2-4.
 CRS-9

amendment, if adopted, would apply to the election of 2004, or only

to later elections.

! In section 2, it directs that “[e]ach presidential elector shall vote for

the presidential candidate and, by ballot, vice-presidential candidate
on the presidential ticket of the political party or political
organization that nominated that presidential elector.” While this
requirement would theoretically prohibit faithless electors, as noted
earlier in this report, the question of whether the states have the
power to so bind their electors remains at issue.21

! In Section 6, it provides for the determination of which elector-

candidates would be elected. Each party or political group would
nominate a full slate of nine elector-candidates, and the number of
electors allocated to each candidate would be determined by the
formula described above. The Colorado Secretary of State would
then determine, by lot, which of the elector-candidates would be
elected. In other words, if Candidate A received five electoral votes
under the proposal, and Candidate B received four, then the
Secretary of State would determine by lot which five elector-
candidates on Candidate A’s ticket would be chosen, and which four
would be chosen from Candidate B’s ticket.

Implications of the Colorado Amendment. If it were implemented

retroactively, as proposed in the preamble, the Colorado amendment could have
profound implications for the 2004 presidential contest, particularly if the election
proved to be close.

For instance, in 2000, the Republican Bush-Cheney ticket won 50.8% of the
popular vote in Colorado, the Democratic Gore-Lieberman ticket won 42.4%, the
Green Party Nader-LaDuke ticket 5.3%, and other candidates won 1.6%. Under the
familiar rules of the general ticket system, the Republican nominees gained all eight
of Colorado’s electoral votes.22

Proponents of the amendment maintain that awarding the state’s electoral votes
proportionally would end the general ticket system’s alleged disenfranchisement of
those whose preferred candidates who received fewer popular votes in the state.
Opponents claim that it would reduce Colorado’s importance in the electoral process:
“It takes Colorado out of play for any presidential election, ... And I think that
impacts future decisions on things like potential [military] base closings or federal
highway funding allocations.”23

21
See elsewhere in this report under “Faithless Electors”.
22
Colorado gained one House seat, and hence, one electoral vote, as a result of the 2000
census, thus raising its current total to nine.
23
Dan Hopkins, spokesman for CO Governor Bill Owens, quoted in Jo Becker, “Colorado
Initiative Could Be Key to Presidential Race,” Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2004, p. A12.
 CRS-10

The proposal also figures in the national political context. If a proportional

system like that currently under consideration had been in place in Colorado in 2000,
the state’s electoral vote results would been different, with the Republican nominees
winning five electors in Colorado, and the Democratic nominees three.24 (The Green
Party and minor parties would not have qualified for any electors under the
provisions of Amendment 36). The change resulting from the loss of those three
electoral votes by the Bush ticket would have reduced its nationwide total to 268.
Conversely, the Gore ticket’s total would have risen to 269, giving the Democrats a
plurality in the electoral college. This would have left Vice President Gore one vote
short of an electoral college majority, conceivably leading to contingent election in
Congress. These numbers do not, however, account for the single blank electoral
vote cast by a District of Columbia elector to the protest the election results. Under
the circumstances described above, the said elector might rather have chosen to cast
her ballot as instructed, providing the Democratic ticket with the majority of electoral
votes required by the Constitution, and thus changing the election’s outcome.

Constitutional Questions. Other questions have been raised as to

whether this effort to change the allocation formula for Colorado’s electoral votes by
initiative is constitutional. Specifically, the U.S. Constitution (in Article II, section
1, clause 2) provides that, “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....”
Since the early years of government under the Constitution, the state legislatures
have generally exercised this grant of power by authorizing the voters to choose
electors, and they have usually specified the winner-take-all or general ticket system
as the means by which the voters’ decision is used to allocate electors and electoral
votes.

The fact that Colorado’s proposed Amendment 36 would alter the formula for
awarding electoral votes by a vote of the people is the salient issue here. The
Colorado legislature’s right under Article II to establish a proportional system is not
in dispute; the question rather, is, does the Colorado legislature have authority to
subdelegate its Article II powers to determine and change the existing method of
appointing electors to a popular vote? Can the voters of Colorado act in place of, or
as the state legislature? The Colorado Constitution specifically empowers the people
of the state to “to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or
reject the same at the polls independent of the general assembly ...”25

Proponents of Amendment 36 could argue that this is sufficient authority to

change the allocation of electoral votes by popular vote. Further, it could be argued
that the U.S. Constitution’s failure to expressly prohibit this procedure, or others like
it, provides an implicit endorsement. On the other hand, opponents could arguably
assert that the U.S. Constitution clearly delegates this power to the state legislatures,

24
Results computed by CRS from America Votes 24: A Handbook of Contemporary
American Election Statistics (Washington: CQ Press, 2001).
25
Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article V, section 1, clause 1.
 CRS-11

and only the state legislatures.26 Moreover, commentary on the Colorado amendment
by initiative process notes that, “An amendment is not valid just because the people
voted for it. The initiative gives the people of a state no power to adopt a
constitutional amendment which violates the federal constitution.”27

A subsidiary question is whether the amendment can be retroactively instituted,

as stated in the preamble. Proponents could cite commentary on the initiative device
in Colorado notes that, “The initiative and referendum provision is in all respects
self-executing. It is not a mere framework, but contains the necessary detailed
provisions for carrying into immediate effect the enjoyment of the rights therein
established without legislative action.”28 Opponents could argue that the retroactive
provision is an attempt at political manipulation of the election results to gain a short
term benefit for one candidate, and that it runs contrary to notions of fair play.

These questions might be raised following an extremely close presidential

election in 2004, particularly if proportional electoral vote allocation in Colorado
appeared to reverse the nationwide results. Legal challenges to the amendment on
various grounds would arguably be likely under these circumstances, and might lead
to a prolonged and bitter dispute, such as occurred following the 2000 election.

Concluding Observations
The electoral college system has demonstrated both durability and adaptability
during more than two centuries of government under the U.S. Constitution.
Although its structural elements remain largely unchanged, in operation it has never
worked in quite the way the founders anticipated, and has evolved into a patchwork
assemblage of constitutional provisions, state laws, political party practices, and
enduring traditions. The electoral college system has always had flaws and critics,
and it has been the subject of controversy on five occasions,29 but it has delivered a
President and Vice President in 54 elections under the Constitution. Given the high
hurdles faced by proposed constitutional amendments, it seems likely to remain in
place unless or until its alleged failings become so compelling that large concurrent
majorities in the public, the Congress, and the states, are prepared to undertake its
reform or abolition.

26
See, e.g., McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1,25 (1892), holding that the word “legislature”
in Article II, section 1, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution operates to limit the states); Hawke
v. Smith, No. 1, 253 U.S. 221 (1920), (holding that the language of Article V is “plain”, and
that there is “no doubt in its interpretation” that ratification of amendments is limited to the
only two methods specifically granted by the Constitution); but see, Ohio ex rel. Davis v.
Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (1916), (holding that a referendum did not violate the use of the
word “legislature” in Article I, section 4, clause 1 of the Constitution).
27
Colorado Revised Statutes, 2003, vol. 1 (n.p. : LexisNexis, 2003), p. 380.
28
Ibid., p. 373.
29
1800, 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
 CRS-12

Table 1. Electoral Vote Allocation by Jurisdiction, 2004-2008

State Electors State Electors State Electors

Alabama 9 Kentucky 8 North Dakota 3
Alaska 3 Louisiana 9 Ohio 20
Arizona 10 Maine 4 Oklahoma 7
Arkansas 6 Maryland 10 Oregon 7
California 55 Massachusetts 12 Pennsylvania 21
Colorado 9 Michigan 17 Rhode Island 4
Connecticut 7 Minnesota 10 South Carolina 8
Delaware 3 Mississippi 6 South Dakota 3
District of Columbia 3 Missouri 11 Tennessee 11
Florida 27 Montana 3 Texas 34
Georgia 15 Nebraska 5 Utah 5
Hawaii 4 Nevada 5 Vermont 3
Idaho 4 New Hampshire 4 Virginia 13
Illinois 21 New Jersey 15 Washington 11
Indiana 11 New Mexico 5 West Virginia 5
Iowa 7 New York 31 Wisconsin 10
Kansas 6 North Carolina 15 Wyoming 3