Of these, 100 votes represent our U.S. senators. Proponents of a national popular vote point out that the combined population of the 50 biggest cities (not including metropolitan areas) amounts to only 15% of the population. The vice president and the Speaker of the House sit at the podium, with the vice president in the seat of the Speaker of the House. The amount of the reduction is to be in keeping with the proportion of such people denied a vote. Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. According to this argument, the fact the Electoral College is made up of real people instead of mere numbers allows for human judgment and flexibility to make a decision, if it happens that a candidate dies or becomes legally disabled around the time of the election. Their Electoral College votes can be split because those two states award electoral votes according to the percentage of the popular vote a candidate received. Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon EST on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. [69] Delegates Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized the use of a national popular vote system. Regarding Section 2, he said:[70], The second section I consider the most important in the article. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." [213], Since January 3, 2019, joint resolutions have been made proposing constitutional amendments that would replace the Electoral College with the popular election of the president and vice president. For example, if a particular state blocks some groups from voting, perhaps by voter suppression methods such as imposing reading tests, poll taxes, registration requirements, or legally disfranchising specific minority groups, then voting inside that state would be reduced, but as the state's electoral count would be the same, disenfranchisement has no effect on the overall electoral tally. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy. Alabama through Missouri (including the District of Columbia) are placed in one box and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box. [92] One certificate is sent, as soon after Election Day as practicable, to the National Archivist in Washington. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for president or vice president, the election is determined via a contingency procedure established by the Twelfth Amendment. The short ballot displays the names of the candidates for president and vice president, rather than the names of prospective electors. "[44] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[43]. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts, and it was inconceivable that a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept.

"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.". [209] However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971. [74], An elector votes for each office, but at least one of these votes (president or vice president) must be cast for a person who is not a resident of the same state as that elector. The question of the extent to which state constitutions may constrain the legislature's choice of a method of choosing electors has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Hamilton argued that electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public. For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the president must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government. In contemporary practice, each presidential-vice presidential ticket has an associated slate of potential electors. Populous states in which pre-election poll results show no clear favorite are inundated with campaign visits, saturation television advertising, get-out-the-vote efforts by party organizers, and debates, while "four out of five" voters in the national election are "absolutely ignored", according to one assessment. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. election for president. It won't count in most states", "Split Electoral Votes in Maine and Nebraska", "Electoral College Instructions to State Officials", District of Columbia Certificate of Ascertainment, "U.S.C.

Each Certificate of Vote must be signed by all of the electors and a Certificate of Ascertainment must be attached to each of the Certificates of Vote. This created the sense that Obama won handily. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. According to this view, if elections were by popular vote, then states would be motivated to include more citizens in elections since the state would then have more political clout nationally. In contrast, states with large populations such as California, Texas, and New York, have in recent elections been considered "safe" for a particular party — Democratic for California and New York and Republican for Texas — and therefore campaigns spend less time and money there. They point out that the national popular vote observed under the Electoral College system does not reflect the popular vote observed under a National Popular Vote system, as each electoral institution produces different incentives for, and strategy choices by, presidential campaigns.