2008 Woodie Awards
Graduating from the electoral college to consider other options
Second in a four-part series about voter awareness
Kate Giglio
Issue date: 10/14/04 Section: Features
- Page 1 of 2 next >
This year, amid predictions of the closest race in history, the debate between the credibility of the electoral vote versus the popular vote will likely surface as it has in years before.
In 1876, the United States Electoral Commission gave electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, allowing him to win the U.S. presidency, despite the fact that Samuel Tilden had won the popular vote. Likewise, in 2000, the Democratic nominee for president lost the competition even though he had beaten his opponent. George W. Bush became president instead of Al Gore. And in 2004 it is likely that electoral-vote numbers will hover very close to 270, the required amount for the presidency.
According the Federal Election Commission's Web site, the system affords each state a number of electors equal to the number of its senators (always two) plus the number of its House representatives, which can change each decade according to the size of each state's population.
The political parties in each state submit a list of individuals, equal to their state's number of electoral votes, who have pledged that party's candidate for president.
When the voters cast their ballots, they are voting for a party slate of electors representing their choice for president and vice president.
Then, says the Web site, about two weeks later, each state's electors meet in their respective state capitals and cast their electoral votes - one for president and one for vice president.
Established in 1789, the Electoral College first chose George Washington as president. Since then, the United States has used essentially the same method to elect subsequent leaders, despite snowballing doubts about the system's accuracy.
Michael White, director of legal affairs for the Office of the Federal Register, said, "There are people who are opposed to it and there are those who support it." He added that in 2000's election, "there was a lot of controversy surrounding the issue" of whether Bush or Gore had won.
In 1876, the United States Electoral Commission gave electoral votes to Rutherford B. Hayes, allowing him to win the U.S. presidency, despite the fact that Samuel Tilden had won the popular vote. Likewise, in 2000, the Democratic nominee for president lost the competition even though he had beaten his opponent. George W. Bush became president instead of Al Gore. And in 2004 it is likely that electoral-vote numbers will hover very close to 270, the required amount for the presidency.
According the Federal Election Commission's Web site, the system affords each state a number of electors equal to the number of its senators (always two) plus the number of its House representatives, which can change each decade according to the size of each state's population.
The political parties in each state submit a list of individuals, equal to their state's number of electoral votes, who have pledged that party's candidate for president.
When the voters cast their ballots, they are voting for a party slate of electors representing their choice for president and vice president.
Then, says the Web site, about two weeks later, each state's electors meet in their respective state capitals and cast their electoral votes - one for president and one for vice president.
Established in 1789, the Electoral College first chose George Washington as president. Since then, the United States has used essentially the same method to elect subsequent leaders, despite snowballing doubts about the system's accuracy.
Michael White, director of legal affairs for the Office of the Federal Register, said, "There are people who are opposed to it and there are those who support it." He added that in 2000's election, "there was a lot of controversy surrounding the issue" of whether Bush or Gore had won.