Did you know?  The Office of the Federal Register coordinates the functions of the Electoral College on behalf of the Archivist of the United States, the States, the Congress, and the American People.  ...

The following is a summary of the Electoral College process for election year 2000.

Key Electoral College Dates and Events

• November 7, 2000 - General Election: The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven "Certificates of Ascertainment" of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies to the Archivist of the United States.
• December 18, 2000 - Meeting of Electors: The electors in each State meet to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The electors record their votes on six "Certificates of Vote," which are paired with the six remaining original "Certificates of Ascertainment." The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States and other designated Federal and State officials.
• December 27, 2000 - Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes: The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand.
• January 6, 2001 - Counting Electoral Votes in Congress: The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date).
• Final 2000 Election Certificates of ASCERTAINMENT

Links to eXplore

The American Supreme Court (Chicago History of American Civilization)
by Robert G. McCloskey, Sanford Levinson.

In the more than thirty years since its original publication, The American Supreme Court has introduced several generations of students to the workings of the highest court of the United States. Now Sanford Levinson brings this classic work up-to-date, ensuring its continued relevance for decades to come.

Campaigns and the Court (Power, Conflict, and Democracy: American Politics into the 21st Century)
by Donald Grier, Jr. Stephenson (If there is anyone in the United States who believes that the Supreme Court is not involved in the political process, let them read this book. Grier Stephenson deftly shows how the Court, consciously or not, has played a significant roll in presidential campaigns. This book is political science and history on a grand scale, and Stephenson does a superb job in telling the story. - review)

A relevant area ...The Supremes

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States   by Kermit L. Hall, "More than 1,000 entries cover biographies, concepts, issues, procedures, and vocabulary, as well as cases" - review -

Against the Imperial Judiciary : The Supreme Court Vs. the Sovereignty of the People by Matthew J. Franck.

Decision : How the Supreme Court Decides Cases (Oxford Paperbacks)
by Bernard Schwartz, Bernard Schwarz. shows how the major decisions of the Supreme Court came to be, including Roe v. Wade.

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and now, Digital Freedom

bookmark this page for easy return ... you just might think of something later.
Ultimate Informatorium recommendations are listed below:

Time to revisit the basics.  Perhaps its time to shed more light than heat ...

The Electoral College in Brief  -- based on information provided by the Office of the Federal Register The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The electors are a popularly elected body chosen by the States and the District of Columbia on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November (November 7, 2000). The Electoral College consists of 538 electors (one for each of 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 Senators; and 3 for the District of Columbia by virtue of the 23rd AMMENDMENT. Each State's allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators. The decennial census is used to reapportion the number of electors allocated among the States. The slates of electors are generally chosen by the political parties. State laws vary on the appointment of electors. The States prepare a list of the slate of electors for the candidate who receives the most popular votes on a Certificate of Ascertainment. The Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment. The States send one original, along with two authenticated copies or two additional originals to the Archivist of the United States at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) by registered mail, which must be received by the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 18, 2000). The Archivist transmits the originals to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The OFR forwards one copy to each House of Congress and retains the original. The electors meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 18, 2000). A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President and Vice President. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their State. The electors prepare six original Certificates of Vote and annex a Certificate of Ascertainment to each one. Each Certificate of Vote lists all persons voted for as President and the number of electors voting for each person and separately lists all persons voted for as Vice President and the number of electors voting for each person. If no presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the presidential election to be decided by the House of Representatives. The House would select the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State delegation having one vote. If no Vice Presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the Senate would select the Vice President by majority vote, with each Senator choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE prepared by The Office of the Federal  (reproduced here with minor changes)          Who selects the Electors? The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State. What are the qualifications to be an elector? The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. As a historical matter, the 14th Amendment provides that State officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies are disqualified from serving as electors. This prohibition relates to the post-Civil War era. A State's certification of electors on its Certificates of Ascertainment is generally sufficient to establish the qualifications of electors. How does the Electoral College elect the President?   The following is a summary of the Electoral College process for election year 2000. Key Electoral College Dates and Events November 7, 2000 - General Election: The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven "Certificates of Ascertainment" of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies to the Archivist of the United States. December 18, 2000 - Meeting of Electors: The electors in each State meet to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The electors record their votes on six "Certificates of Vote," which are paired with the six remaining original "Certificates of Ascertainment." The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States and other designated Federal and State officials. December 27, 2000 - Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes: The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand. January 6, 2001 - Counting Electoral Votes in Congress: The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date). Is my vote for President and Vice President meaningful in the Electoral College system? Yes, within your State your vote has a great deal of significance. Under the Electoral College system, we do not elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote. The Presidential election is decided by the combined results of 51 State elections (in this context, the term "State" includes DC). Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. The founders of the nation devised the Electoral College system as part of their plan to share power between the States and the national government. Under the Federal system adopted in the Constitution, the nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes awarded on the basis of State elections could produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote. Nevertheless, the individual citizen's vote is important to the outcome of each State election. Are electors required to vote for the candidate who won his or her State's popular vote? There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States (24 plus DC at last count) require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The 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. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged. How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote? It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State. Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 54 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent. In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. Why do we still have the Electoral College? The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process. Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States. What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system? Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981. Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968 won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876 and 1888 elections). How do the 538 electoral votes get divided among the States? The electoral votes allotted to each State corresponds with the number of Representatives and Senators each State has in Congress. The distribution of electoral votes among the States can vary every 10 years depending on the results of the United States Census. One of the primary functions of the Census is to reapportion the 435 members of the House of Representatives among the States, based on the current population. The reapportionment of the House determines the division of electoral votes among the States. In the Electoral College, each State gets one electoral vote for each one of its Representatives in the House, plus two electoral votes for its two Senators. Every state has at least 3 electoral votes because the Constitution grants each State two Senators and at least one Representative. In addition to the 535 electoral votes divided among the States, the District of Columbia has three electoral votes because the 23rd Amendment granted it the same number of votes as the least populated State. If a State gains or loses a Congressional district, it will also gain or lose an electoral vote. As a result of the Census conducted this year, the number of electoral votes allotted to your State may change for the 2004 election   What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which States follow which rule? There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes. Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections. Can citizens in U.S. Territories vote for President? No, the Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President. Unless citizens in U.S. Territories have official residency (domicile) in a U.S. State or the District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote), they cannot vote in the Presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election. The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions. But that process does not affect the Electoral College system.    What would happen if two candidates tied in a State's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner? A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller States. But if a State's popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, State law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a State to hold a run-off election. A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), State law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if States have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet References   Often cited reference sources: Walter Barns (ed.), "After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President, "American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1983; Michael J. Glennon, "When No Majority Rules: The Electoral College and Presidential Succession," Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1992; Pierce and Longley, "The People's President" (1981); William Peters, "A More Perfect Union" (1937); Max Ferrand, "The Framing of the Constitution" (1913, reprinted 1987).

 

New:

Choosing a President: The Electoral College and Beyond by Paul D. Schumaker (2002) -- A team of expert political scientists consider the implications of the Electoral College and proposed reforms

The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment : The Electoral College in the Early Republic, 1787-1804 by Tadahisa Kuroda

Securing Democracy : Why We Have an Electoral College by Mitch McConnell (2001) --  essays in defense of the Electoral College

---

The Electoral College Primer 2000
by Lawrence D. Longley, Neal R. Peirce. Paperback (September 1999)

The president of the United States is elected indirectly by the electoral college--an archaic and quirky system that threatens every four years to overturn popular will, warn Lawrence Longley and Neal Peirce. Their authoritative guide provides essential information about the history and workings of the electoral college system and reveals how it distorts campaigns, poorly represents popular will, and could precipitate a constitutional crisis.

is this in fact the case?

We don't know for sure ... but we certainly need to debate  the propositions

Reviewers write: ""One man, one vote" may be a familiar democratic motto, but it hardly applies to American presidential elections. That's because of the United States' bizarre electoral college system, which makes it possible for candidates who finish second in the popular vote to triumph in the electoral count. In fact, this has happened at least twice (1876 and 1888). On two other occasions (1800 and 1824), the House of Representatives picked the president when nobody won an electoral-college majority. Thomas Jefferson once described this circumstance as "the most dangerous blot on our Constitution." In the brief but comprehensive Electoral College Primer 2000, Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Peirce show why Jefferson's assessment was right on target. They have a keen understanding of the electoral college's vulnerabilities. Through a few simple calculations, for example, they show that Californians have more than two-and-a-half times the voting power of Montana residents. More alarming, however, they describe how a small shift in the popular vote can enact a huge change in the electoral college outcome. They count 22 "hairbreadth elections" in American history, including the 1960 race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon--if 8,971 votes in Illinois and Missouri had switched from Kennedy to Nixon that year, the result would have been an electoral college deadlock. It's amazing the system has held up as well as it has over the years; Longley and Peirce persuasively argue that it's only a matter of time before it breaks down completely."

For the holidays   great video games   popular software   and then for always ...   Self Improvement Program   Agenda for the Future   Regarding Creativity   Memetics and Synthetic Intelligence Discussion Corner ASTEROID WATCH

Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential Democracies
by Mark P. Jones(Editor). 

Survival Of Presidential Democracies is important reading, especially in view of the current national dialogue regarding the difficulties thrown up by the two established political parties (Republicans and Democrats) to the establishment of third party candidates on presidential ballots in the various states. - review