Battleground states. Winner-take-all. Toss-ups. Swing states and strongholds. Every four years, presidential candidates, their campaigns and followers all grapple with a complex web of geography, demographics and math to determine where, when and how they will campaign. But the end result is crystal-clear: whoever wins in states with enough votes to reach a majority in the Electoral College wins the presidency.
The millennium controversy
To some voters, the Electoral College is merely another forgotten phrase from civics class. It took the 2000 election to bring the way the president is elected to the forefront of American politics.
In every state, voters directly select electors pledged to vote for a particular presidential ticket. In almost every state, electors for the ticket with the most popular votes become part of the Electoral College in numbers equal to that state's total number of senators and representatives. About a month after the election, each state's electors meet and cast their votes for president. The candidates receiving at least 270 of 538 become president and vice president.
Despite some elections in the 19th century when the Electoral College spurred controversy, repeated attempts to abolish the body in the 20th century never captured the attention of the public. Until 2000.
That election, in which the Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Republican George W. Bush, highlighted what many say are critical flaws in the Electoral College.
Julie Brown, campaign director for the voter-reform group Make Your Vote Count, said the current method of voting for president is failing the electorate.
"It's a mess," Brown said. "Any way you look at it, it's a mess."
First and foremost, these critics cited the phenomenon of a candidate winning more votes than the other, but losing the race because of the way the votes were distributed in the Electoral College.
Additional complications occurred in 2000 when an elector pledged to Gore in the District of Columbia instead cast a blank ballot, becoming the latest in a string of "faithless electors."
Finally, with most states very likely to vote for either Bush or Gore, the campaigns' relentless focus on a small number of so-called swing or battleground states left the majority of the country uninvolved in the election and its issues, critics said.
Since 2000, many states and advocacy groups have dealt with fall-out centering on election law, outdated voting equipment, and issues such as voter disenfranchisement and voter fraud. But what about the Electoral College itself?
Colorado's continental divide
Although electoral reform is less visible than other voting issues in the national debate, several groups continue to push for changes to the system of electing the president, and one state initiative is poised to change the distribution of state electors for the first time in decades.
On Nov. 2, if Colorado Amendment 36 passes and is enacted into law, the state's electors will be proportioned according to the results of the popular vote, beginning with this year's election.
Under the existing system, a Bush victory of 53 percent to 47 percent over John Kerry would give Bush all nine of Colorado's electoral votes. Under the proposed system, however, Bush would earn five votes while the remaining four would go to Kerry.
Brown, whose organization is supporting Colorado Amendment 36, contended that the Electoral College is widely unpopular, even in smaller states.
"There's a really good opportunity coming out of this election," she said.
The amendment faces both legal and political opposition. Even if it passes, a court will likely have to rule on two issues: whether the people-at-large are empowered to act as a legislature via the initiative process, and whether the new system can apply to the 2004 election.
Additionally, Coloradoans Against a Really Stupid Idea (CARSI) has waged a campaign against Amendment 36 in hopes that the initiative will fail.
CARSI Co-chair Katie Fingers said the proposed system would marginalize Colorado in future presidential elections.
"The presidential candidate wouldn't have to do a thing for Colorado," Fingers said. "Why would a president campaign stop in Colorado? Why would they care what we think?"
Debate over the amendment has not escaped partisan overtones in an election year. One of the primary financial supporters of the initiative, Jorge Klor de Alva, is a Democratic contributor from California. Both Fingers and Katy Atkinson, co-founders of CARSI, are former Republican strategists.
While Amendment 36 has many supporters across the nation, it has been opposed by most of the politicians and press in Colorado. Both of Colorado's Senate candidates, all but one of Colorado's candidates for the House of Representatives, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and every major newspaper editorial board in the state have come out against Amendment 36.
Alternatives abound
The proportional method under the microscope in Colorado is just one of a mind-boggling array of proposals to reform the Electoral College.
The old standby -- abolishing the College -- remains a popular solution among many. Such critics claim the reasons behind the Founding Fathers' establishment of the Electoral College have long-since lost relevance, and therefore a direct, national popular vote should be used to determine the president.
Andrew Kirshenbaum, program associate at the Center for Voting and Democracy in Bethesda, Md., which advocates for the direct popular election of the president, says he hopes the Colorado plan is one step toward achieving that goal.
"Anything that gets closer to that is a good thing," Kirshenbaum said.
Even if a national majority were to favor this option, its passage is unlikely. The Electoral College, as part of the Constitution, can only be changed by a constitutional amendment requiring the support of an unlikely supermajority of states.
Another proposal would nationalize proportional allocation of electoral votes similar to the method proposed in Colorado. Proponents claim candidates would be given an incentive to campaign in a state where they are not ahead in the polls under such a system.
Still, this method has its critics. Almost every victorious candidate for President has received between 48 and 58 percent of the popular vote. Most states, then, would split their electoral votes relatively evenly. If a third-party candidate or candidates gained enough of the popular vote, the resulting loss of electoral votes could throw the election into the House of Representatives.
Some say the solution lies in a system already used by two states: Maine and Nebraska. In these two states, currently the only two not to employ the winner-take-all system, each candidate receives one electoral vote for every congressional district they win, with the remaining two electoral votes awarded to the winner of the entire state. Under this system, voters in "safe" states could still matter if their congressional district were up for grabs. The electoral vote also would be more closely tied to the popular vote.
Still, potential criticisms remain. Voters in safe congressional districts would be unlikely to receive attention from either presidential campaign. In fact, split states with solidly Democratic and Republican districts, such as Florida, could suddenly fall in electoral importance.
The redistricting process, already the subject of intense partisan struggles, could additionally become even more partisan.
"If redistricting now has Presidential election implications, it basically will make the situation worse," Brown said. "It's not a model to follow."
Other ideas have been proposed, to varying degrees of acceptance. For example, historian Arthur Schlesinger once proposed giving a "bonus" of 102 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, bringing the total to 640.
An instant fix
One proposed solution to problems surrounding both proportional and district-based voting is already in use at the University. Under Instant Runoff Voting, voters rank candidates by preference. If no candidate receives a popular majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Those votes are then redistributed among the voters' second preferences. The process is repeated until one candidate attains a majority.
By reducing the "spoiler effect" of third party candidates, IRV likely would have led to a Gore victory in 2000, but Kirshenbaum said IRV also could have had an impact on other past elections.
"If IRV had been used in [the 1992] election, you probably would have seen the election go for George Bush," Kirshenbaum said.
Of course, the Electoral College has many defenders who argue that it does not need to be changed. Even though the initial rationale behind its existence has faded, proponents say it still holds a valuable place in American politics.
As it was originally intended, the presidential vote should represent every part of the country, Fingers said.
"The President has to carry bits of every constituency," she said.
Although CARSI's founders haven't considered any other options for electoral reform, they do not see a pressing need for it, Fingers said.
"Right now, after going through this campaign, I don't see any need for reform," she said.
Kirshenbaum noted any electoral system would have some kind of flaw.
"There is no ideal election system. They all have their faults," he said.
Looking ahead
Facing stiff resistance, Colorado's Amendment 36 currently is behind in the polls, but still stands a chance at passage. Either way, debate over electoral reform should extend beyond just one state, Fingers said.
"If there's going to be Electoral College reform, that discussion must occur at a national level," she said.
Opposition to the amendment has highlighted the difficulty of initiating electoral reform on a small scale, Brown said.
"The problem out here is that no state wants to feel like they're all by themselves," Brown said.
Kirshenbaum said the Center would continue to push for electoral reform, such as nonpartisan redistricting and a constitutional amendment regarding the right to vote.
Noting how entrenched the Electoral College is in American politics, Kirshenbaum said any effort to change it would be a huge undertaking.
"It's a long-term, ongoing effort," he said.
Read More
Senior VP for Operations Colette Sheehy looks back at her career at the University
By Brandon Kile | 1 hours agoSheehy’s role involved overseeing the work of around 2,500 University employees, including custodians, architects and engineers.
Will the Faculty Senate’s no-confidence vote impact the U.Va. Board of Visitors?
By Brandon Kile | 17 hours agoIn many cases, a no-confidence vote may soon be followed by steps taken to remove the leadership that may be acting against the wishes of a community.
Two senior U.Va. Health leaders quietly take new jobs without formal announcement
By Ford McCracken | YesterdayKibbe’s departure marks the end of an ongoing battle between U.Va. Health employees and their senior leadership.
