Editing United States Electoral College (section)

== History ==
{{Primary sources|section|date=February 2024}}

=== Original plan ===
[[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 3: Electoral College|Article II, Section 1, Clause 3]] of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president.

According to Stanley Chang, the original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)#Framers of the Constitution|Framers of the Constitution]]:<ref>{{cite journal |last=Chang |first=Stanley |author-link=Stanley Chang |year=2007 |title=Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation |url=http://archive.fairvote.org/media/documents/chang.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=[[Harvard Journal on Legislation]] |location=Cambridge, MA |publisher=President and Fellows of Harvard College |volume=44 |issue=205, at 208 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220304214934/http://archive.fairvote.org/media/documents/chang.pdf |archive-date=March 4, 2022 |access-date=May 28, 2020}}</ref>
# Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".<ref name="auto1">Hamilton, Alexander. [https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp "The Federalist Papers : No. 68"], ''The Avalon Project,'' 2008. From the  Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 22 Jan 2022.</ref>
# The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".<ref>Hamilton, Alexander. [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0289 Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 29 January 1802], National Archives, Founders Online, viewed March 2, 2019.</ref>
# Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.<ref>Describing how the Electoral College was designed to work, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations [decisions regarding the selection of a president]." (Hamilton, [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm Federalist 68]). Hamilton strongly believed this was to be done district by district, and when states began doing otherwise, he proposed a constitutional amendment to mandate the district system (Hamilton, [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0289 Draft of a Constitutional Amendment]). Madison concurred, "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted." ([https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023 Madison to Hay, 1823] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525182347/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023|date=May 25, 2017}})</ref>
# Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.<ref name="auto1"/>
# Candidates would not pair together on the same [[Ticket (election)|ticket]] with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president.

Election expert, William C. Kimberling, reflected on the original intent as follows:

<blockquote>"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the [[College of Cardinals]] selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."<ref>William C. Kimberling, [https://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php ''Essays in Elections: The Electoral College''] (1992).</ref></blockquote>

According to Supreme Court justice [[Robert H. Jackson]], in a dissenting opinion, the original intention of the framers was that the electors would not feel bound to support any particular candidate, but would vote their conscience, free of external pressure.

<blockquote>"No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/214|title=Ray v. Blair|website=LII / Legal Information Institute}}</ref></blockquote>

In support for his view, Justice Jackson cited [[Federalist No. 68]]:
<blockquote>'It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture... It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.'</blockquote>

Philip J. VanFossen of [[Purdue University]] explains that the original purpose of the electors was not to reflect the will of the citizens, but rather to "serve as a check on a public who might be easily misled."<ref>{{Cite web |last=VanFossen |first=Phillip J. |date=November 4, 2020 |title=Who invented the Electoral College? |url=http://theconversation.com/who-invented-the-electoral-college-147083 |website=[[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]]}}</ref>

Randall Calvert, the Eagleton Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science at [[Washington University in St. Louis]], stated, "At the framing the more important consideration was that electors, expected to be more knowledgeable and responsible, would actually do the choosing."<ref>{{Cite web |date=July 6, 2020 |title=WashU Expert: Electoral College ruling contradicts Founders' 'original intent' – The Source – Washington University in St. Louis |url=https://source.wustl.edu/2020/07/washu-expert-electoral-college-ruling-contradicts-founders-original-intent/ |website=[[The Source (magazine)|The Source]]}}</ref>

Constitutional expert Michael Signer explained that the electoral college was designed "to provide a mechanism where intelligent, thoughtful and statesmanlike leaders could deliberate on the winner of the popular vote and, if necessary, choose another candidate who would not put Constitutional values and practices at risk."<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://time.com/4575119/electoral-college-demagogues/|title=The Electoral College Was Created to Stop Demagogues Like Trump|first=TIME|last=Staff|date=November 17, 2016|magazine=TIME}}</ref> [[Robert Schlesinger]], writing for [[U.S. News and World Report]], similarly stated, "The original conception of the Electoral College, in other words, was a body of men who could serve as a check on the uninformed mass electorate."<ref>[https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-12-27/the-electoral-college-doesnt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended Robert Schlesinger, "Not Your Founding Fathers' Electoral College," U.S. News and World Report, December 27, 2016.]</ref>

==== Breakdown and revision ====
In spite of Hamilton's assertion that electors were to be chosen by mass election, initially, state legislatures chose the electors in most of the states.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a2_1_2-3s6.html|title=Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: [Selection of Electors, 1796—1832], McPherson v. Blacker|website=press-pubs.uchicago.edu}}</ref> States progressively changed to selection by popular election. In [[1824 United States presidential election|1824]], there were six states in which electors were still legislatively appointed. By [[1832 United States presidential election|1832]], only [[South Carolina]] had not transitioned. Since [[1864 United States presidential election|1864]] (with the sole exception of newly admitted Colorado in 1876 for logistical reasons), electors in every state have been chosen based on a popular election held on [[Election Day (United States)|Election Day]].<ref name=CRS2017THN/> The popular election for electors means the president and vice president are in effect chosen through [[indirect election]] by the citizens.<ref>{{cite web|title=Electoral College |website=history.com|url=https://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college|publisher=A+E Networks|access-date=August 6, 2018}}</ref>

====The emergence of parties and campaigns====
{{main article|Political parties in the United States}}
{{see also|George Washington's Farewell Address#Political parties}}
The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate [[Political party|political parties]].<ref name=":02">{{Cite book |last=Davis |first=Kenneth C. |title=Don't Know Much About History: Everything You Need to Know About American History but Never Learned |publisher=HarperCollins |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-06-008381-6 |edition=1st |location=New York |pages=620 |author-link=Kenneth C. Davis}}</ref> Indeed [[George Washington's Farewell Address]] in 1796 included an urgent appeal to avert such parties. Neither did the framers anticipate candidates "running" for president. Within just a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, however, both phenomena became permanent features of the political landscape of the United States.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}

The emergence of [[Political party|political parties]] and nationally coordinated election campaigns soon complicated matters in the elections of [[1796 United States presidential election|1796]] and [[1800 United States presidential election|1800]]. In 1796, [[Federalist Party]] candidate [[John Adams]] won the presidential election. Finishing in second place was [[Democratic-Republican Party]] candidate [[Thomas Jefferson]], the Federalists' opponent, who became the vice president. This resulted in the president and vice president being of different political parties.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}

In 1800, the Democratic-Republican Party again nominated Jefferson for president and also again nominated [[Aaron Burr]] for vice president. After the electors voted, Jefferson and Burr were tied with one another with 73 electoral votes each. Since ballots did not distinguish between votes for president and votes for vice president, every ballot cast for Burr technically counted as a vote for him to become president, despite Jefferson clearly being his party's first choice. Lacking a clear winner by constitutional standards, the election had to be decided by the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] pursuant to the Constitution's contingency election provision.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}

Having already lost the presidential contest, Federalist Party representatives in the [[Lame duck (politics)|lame duck]] House session seized upon the opportunity to embarrass their opposition by attempting to elect Burr over Jefferson. The House deadlocked for 35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary majority vote of the state delegations in the House (The votes of nine states were needed for a conclusive election.). On the 36th ballot, Delaware's lone Representative, [[James A. Bayard (politician, born 1767)|James A. Bayard]], made it known that he intended to break the impasse for fear that failure to do so could endanger the future of the Union. Bayard and other Federalists from South Carolina, Maryland, and Vermont abstained, breaking the deadlock and giving Jefferson a majority.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/february-17/|title=Today in History – February 17|website=Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.}}</ref>

Responding to the problems from those elections, Congress proposed on December 9, 1803, and three-fourths of the states ratified by June 15, 1804, the [[Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twelfth Amendment]]. Starting with the [[1804 United States presidential election|1804 election]], the amendment requires electors to cast separate ballots for president and vice president, replacing the system outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}

===Evolution from unpledged to pledged electors===
Some Founding Fathers hoped that each elector would be elected by the citizens of a district<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://prospect.org/features/people-s-choice/|title=Not the People's Choice|first=Arthur Schlesinger|last=Jr|date=March 6, 2002|website=The American Prospect}}</ref> and that elector was to be free to ''analyze'' and ''deliberate'' regarding who is best suited to be president.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-TCPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA124|title=Representation and the Electoral College|first=Robert M.|last=Alexander|date=April 1, 2019|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-093944-1 |via=Google Books}}</ref>

In [[Federalist No. 68]] Alexander Hamilton described the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers']] view of how electors would be chosen: {{blockquote|A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]... They [the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)#Framers of the Constitution|framers of the constitution]]] have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men [i.e. Electors pledged to vote one way or another], who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes [i.e., to be told how to vote]; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons [Electors to the Electoral College] for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have EXCLUDED from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office [in other words, no one can be an Elector who is prejudiced toward the president]... Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias [Electors must not come to the Electoral College with bias]. Their transient existence, and their detached [unbiased] situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it."<ref name="Hamilton, Federalist 68">{{cite web|url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp|title=Federalist No. 68|publisher=The Avalon Project}}</ref>}}

However, when electors were pledged to vote for a specific candidate, the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became, as Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] wrote, "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."<ref>Justice Robert Jackson, [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/214 Ray v. Blair, dissent, 1952]</ref> According to Hamilton, writing in 1788, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."<ref name="Hamilton, Federalist 68"/>

Hamilton stated that the electors were to ''analyze'' the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." In a 2020 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, the court additionally cited [[John Jay]]'s view that the electors' choices would reflect "discretion and discernment."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-465/|title=Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)|website=Justia Law}}</ref>
Reflecting on this original intention, a U.S. Senate report in 1826 critiqued the evolution of the system:

<blockquote>It was the intention of the Constitution that these electors should be an independent body of men, chosen by the people from among themselves, on account of their superior discernment, virtue, and information; and that this select body should be left to make the election ''according to their own will'', without the slightest control from the body of the people. That this intention has failed of its object in every election, is a fact of such universal notoriety that no one can dispute it. Electors, therefore, have not answered the design of their institution. They are not the independent body and superior characters which they were intended to be. They are not left to the exercise of their own judgment: on the contrary, they give their vote, or bind themselves to give it, according to the will of their constituents. They have degenerated into mere agents, in a case which requires no agency, and where the agent must be useless...<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=003/llrd003.db&recNum=656|title=A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875|website=memory.loc.gov}}</ref></blockquote>

In 1833, Supreme Court Justice [[Joseph Story]] detailed how badly from the framers' intention the Electoral Process had been "subverted":

<blockquote>In no respect have the views of the framers of the constitution been so completely frustrated as relates to the independence of the electors in the electoral colleges. It is notorious, that the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates, and are silently pledged to vote for them. Nay, upon some occasions the electors publicly pledge themselves to vote for a particular person; and thus, in effect, the whole foundation of the system, so elaborately constructed, is subverted.<ref name="auto12">{{Cite web|url=https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s11.html|title=Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1449—52, 1454—60, 1462—67|website=press-pubs.uchicago.edu}}</ref></blockquote>

Story observed that if an elector does what the framers of the Constitution expected him to do, he would be considered immoral:

<blockquote>So, that nothing is left to the electors after their choice, but to register votes, which are already pledged; and an exercise of an independent judgment would be treated, as a political usurpation, dishonorable to the individual, and a fraud upon his constituents.<ref name="auto12"/></blockquote>

=== Evolution to the general ticket ===
[[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Method of choosing electors|Article II, Section 1, Clause 2]] of the Constitution states:
{{blockquote|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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.}}

According to Hamilton, Madison and others, the original intent was that this would take place district by district.<ref name="auto11">{{Cite web|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0289|title=Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the ...|website=founders.archives.gov}}</ref><ref name="auto10">{{Cite web |url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023 |title=James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823 |date=May 25, 2017 |website= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525182347/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023 |archive-date=25 May 2017 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r75XAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA74|title=Presidential Lottery: The Reckless Gamble in Our Electoral System|first=James A.|last=Michener|date=April 15, 2014|publisher=Random House Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-8041-5160-3 |via=Google Books}}</ref> The district plan was last carried out in [[1892 United States presidential election in Michigan|Michigan in 1892]].<ref name="auto3">{{Cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PiWltoZmSlYC&pg=RA5-PA402|title=Hearings|first=United States Congress|last=Senate|date=November 3, 1961|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|via=Google Books}}</ref> For example, in [[Massachusetts]] in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Z0ouAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA245|title=Resolves of the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Passed at Their Session, which Commenced on Wednesday, the Thirty First of May, and Ended on the Seventeenth of June, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty. Published Agreeably to Resolve of 16th January, 1812. Boston, Russell & Gardner, for B. Russell, 1820; [repr|date=January 1, 1820|publisher=Boston Book Company|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NfhcDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA111|title=A Perspective on How Our Government Was Built And Some Needed Changes|first=Darrel A.|last=Nash|date=May 1, 2018|publisher=Dorrance Publishing|isbn=978-1-4809-7915-4 |via=Google Books}}</ref> In other words, the name of a candidate for president was ''not'' on the ballot. Instead, citizens voted for their local elector.

Some state leaders began to adopt the strategy that the favorite partisan presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way—a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.<ref name="fairvote.org">{{Cite web |date=2012-08-21 |title=How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All |url=https://fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all/ |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=FairVote |language=en}}</ref> Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.<ref name="fairvote.org"/>

When [[James Madison]] and [[Alexander Hamilton]], two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly.<ref name="auto11"/><ref name="auto10"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.charlatanmagazine.com/Politico/electoralcollege/index.html|title=Electoral College|website=The Charlatan &#124; The Exposé of Politics & Style}}</ref> Madison said 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. Madison wrote to [[George Hay (Virginia judge)|George Hay]]: {{blockquote|The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].<ref name="Madison to Hay, 1823">{{cite web|url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023|title=Founders Online: James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525182347/https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-0023|archive-date=May 25, 2017|df=mdy-all}}</ref>}}

Each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors. However, [[Federalist No. 68]], insofar as it reflects the intent of the founders, states that Electors will be "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass," and with regard to choosing Electors, "they [the framers] have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America." Several methods for selecting electors are described [[#Alternative methods of choosing electors|below]].

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by the trend to "general tickets" that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan. Hamilton drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-25-02-0289|title=Founders Online: Draft of a Resolution for the Legislature of New York for the{{nbsp}}...|website=founders.archives.gov}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Hamilton's [[Burr–Hamilton duel|untimely death]] in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 prevented him from advancing his proposed reforms any further. "[T]he election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.<ref name="Madison to Hay, 1823"/>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

Madison also drafted a constitutional amendment that would ensure the original "district" plan of the framers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-03-02-0109|title=Founders Online: From James Madison to George Hay, 23 August 1823|website=founders.archives.gov}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Jefferson agreed with Hamilton and Madison saying, "all agree that an election by districts would be the best."<ref name="auto3"/>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Jefferson explained to Madison's correspondent why he was doubtful of the amendment being ratified: "the states are now so numerous that I despair of ever seeing another amendment of the constitution."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3707|title=Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 17 August 1823|website=founders.archives.gov}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

=== Evolution of selection plans ===
In 1789, the at-large popular vote, the winner-take-all method, began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. Massachusetts, Virginia and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote, and state legislatures chose in the five other states participating in the election (Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina).<ref>{{cite web|title=1788 Election For the First Term, 1789–1793|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1789_1821.html#1788|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060601231820/https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1789_1821.html|archive-date=June 1, 2006|website=U. S. Electoral College|publisher=U.S. National Archives|access-date=April 19, 2017}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=October 2020}}{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York's legislature deadlocked over the method of choosing electors and abstained;<ref>Stephens, Frank Fletcher. ''[https://archive.org/details/peri00steptransitionalrich/page/66/mode/2up The transitional period, 1788-1789, in the government of the United States]'', [[University of Missouri Press]], 1909, pp. 67-74.</ref> North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.<ref>{{cite web|title=United States presidential election of 1789|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1789|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=April 19, 2017|language=en|date=September 19, 2013}}</ref>

By 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by state legislature. Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.<ref name="auto">Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, pp. 9–10.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

By 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors, and it abandoned the method after 1860.<ref name="auto"/>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country.<ref>Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, pp. 10–11.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

Since 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been the almost universal practice.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191297.P.pdf|title=''Batan v. McMaster'', No. 19-1297 (4th Cir., 2020), p. 5}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1992) use a district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.<ref>Presidential Elections 1789–1996. Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 1997, {{ISBN|978-1-5680-2065-5}}, p. 11.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

===Correlation between popular vote and electoral college votes===

{{anchor|EvsP}}Since the mid-19th century, when all electors have been popularly chosen, the Electoral College has elected the candidate who received the most (though not necessarily a majority) popular votes nationwide, except in four elections: [[1876 United States presidential election|1876]], [[1888 United States presidential election|1888]], [[2000 United States presidential election|2000]], and [[2016 United States presidential election|2016]]. A case has also been made that it happened in [[1960 United States presidential election|1960]]. In [[1824 United States presidential election|1824]], when there were six states in which electors were legislatively appointed, rather than popularly elected, the true national popular vote is uncertain. The electors in 1824 failed to select a winning candidate, so the matter was decided by the House of Representatives.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/|title=Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote|first=D'Angelo|last=Gore|date=December 23, 2016|publisher=[[FactCheck.org]]}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=February 2024}}

=== Three-fifths clause and the role of slavery ===
{{POV section|date=February 2024}}
After the initial estimates agreed to in the original Constitution, Congressional and Electoral College reapportionment was made according to a decennial census to reflect population changes, modified by counting [[Three-Fifths Compromise|three-fifths of slaves]]. On this basis after the first census, the Electoral College still gave the free men of slave-owning states (but never slaves) extra power (Electors) based on a count of these disenfranchised people, in the choice of the U.S. president.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130103115308/http://history.house.gov/Institution/Apportionment/Apportionment/ Apportionment by State (PDF)], House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.

Unlike composition in the College, from 1803 to 1846, the U.S. Senate sustained parity between free-soil and slave-holding states. Later a run of free-soil states, including Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas, were admitted before the outbreak of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]].</ref>

At the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]], the college composition, in theory, amounted to 49 votes for northern states (in the process of abolishing slavery) and 42 for slave-holding states (including Delaware). In the event, the first (i.e. 1788) presidential election lacked votes and electors for unratified Rhode Island (3) and North Carolina (7) and for New York (8) which reported too late; the Northern majority was 38 to 35.<ref>[https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript U.S. Constitution Transcript], held at the U.S. National Archives, viewed online on February 5, 2019.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} For the next two decades, the three-fifths clause led to electors of free-soil Northern states numbering 8% and 11% more than Southern states. The latter had, in the compromise, relinquished counting two-fifths of their slaves and, after 1810, were outnumbered by 15.4% to 23.2%.<ref>Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valelly, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}} p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.</ref>

While House members for Southern states were boosted by an average of {{frac|1|3}},<ref>Leonard L. Richards, [https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=5564|The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780–1860] (2001), referenced in a review at Humanities and Social Sciences Net Online, viewed February 2, 2019.</ref> a free-soil majority in the college maintained over this early republic and Antebellum period.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, pp. 464–65, Table 16.6, "Impact of the Three-fifths Clause on the Electoral College, 1792–1860". The continuing, uninterrupted northern free-soil majority margin in the Electoral College would have been significantly smaller had slaves been counter-factually counted as whole persons, but still the South would have been a minority in the Electoral College over these sixty-eight years.</ref> Scholars conclude that the three-fifths clause had low impact on sectional proportions and factional strength, until denying the North a pronounced supermajority, as to the Northern, federal initiative to abolish slavery. The seats that the South gained from such "slave bonus" were quite evenly distributed between the parties. In the First Party System (1795–1823), the Jefferson Republicans gained 1.1 percent more adherents from the slave bonus, while the Federalists lost the same proportion. At the Second Party System (1823–1837) the emerging Jacksonians gained just 0.7% more seats, versus the opposition loss of 1.6%.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, pp. 454–55.</ref>

The three-fifths slave-count rule is associated with three or four outcomes, 1792–1860:
* The clause, having reduced the South's power, led to John Adams's win in 1796 over Thomas Jefferson.<ref>Brian D. Humes, Elaine K. Swift, Richard M. Valley, Kenneth Finegold, and Evelyn C. Fink, "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause", Chapter 15 in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, p. 453, and Table 15.1, "Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause on Slave and Nonslave Representation (1790–1861)", p. 454.</ref>
* In 1800, historian [[Garry Wills]] argues, Jefferson's victory over Adams was due to the slave bonus count in the Electoral College as Adams would have won if citizens' votes were used for each state.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power|last=Wills|first=Garry|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|year=2005|isbn=978-0618485376|pages=1–3 |language=en}}</ref> However, historian [[Sean Wilentz]] points out that Jefferson's purported "slave advantage" ignores an offset by electoral manipulation by anti-Jefferson forces in Pennsylvania. Wilentz concludes that it is a myth to say that the Electoral College was a pro-slavery ploy.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html|title=Opinion &#124; The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy|first=Sean|last=Wilentz|newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 4, 2019|access-date=May 20, 2020}}</ref>
* In 1824, the presidential selection was passed to the House of Representatives, and John Quincy Adams was chosen over Andrew Jackson, who won fewer citizens' votes. Then Jackson won in 1828, but would have lost if the college were citizen-only apportionment. Scholars conclude that in the 1828 race, Jackson benefited materially from the Three-fifths clause by providing his margin of victory.

The first "Jeffersonian" and "Jacksonian" victories were of great importance as they ushered in sustained party majorities of several Congresses and presidential party eras.<ref>Brian D. Humes, et al. "Representation of the Antebellum South in the House of Representatives: Measuring the Impact of the Three-Fifths Clause" in David W. Brady and Mathew D. McCubbins, eds., Party, Process and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress (2002), Stanford University Press, {{ISBN|978-0-8047-4571-0}}, p. 464.</ref>

Besides the Constitution prohibiting Congress from regulating foreign or domestic slave trade before 1808 and a duty on states to return escaped "persons held to service",<ref>[https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Constitution of the United States: A Transcription], online February 9, 2019. See Article I, Section 9, and in Article IV, Section 2.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} legal scholar [[Akhil Reed Amar]] argues that the college was originally advocated by slaveholders as a bulwark to prop up slavery. In the Congressional apportionment provided in the text of the Constitution with its Three-Fifths Compromise estimate, "Virginia emerged as the big winner [with] more than a quarter of the [votes] needed to win an election in the first round [for Washington's first presidential election in 1788]." Following the [[1790 United States census]], the most populous state was Virginia, with 39.1% slaves, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, to yield a calculated number of 175,389 for congressional apportionment.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=H9KwtRkiO1YC&pg=PA42 First Census of the United States], Chapter III in "A Century of Population Growth from the first Census", volume 900, United States Census Office, 1909 In the 1790, Virginia's...population was 747,610, Pennsylvania was 433,633. (p. 8). Virginia had 59.1 percent white and 1.7 percent free black counted whole, and 39.1 percent, or 292,315 counted three-fifths, or a 175,389 number for congressional apportionment. Pennsylvania had 97.5 percent white and 1.6 percent free black, and 0.9 percent slave, or 7,372 persons, p. 82.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

"The "free" state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia but got 20% fewer electoral votes."<ref name="amar2">{{cite magazine|last1=Amar|first1=Akhil|title= The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists|url=https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/|magazine=Time|date=November 10, 2016}}</ref> Pennsylvania split eight to seven for Jefferson, favoring Jefferson with a majority of 53% in a state with 0.1% slave population.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20051024161640/http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/1800-election/1800-election.html Tally of Electoral Votes for the 1800 Presidential Election, February 11, 1801], National Archives, The Center for Legislative Archives, viewed January 27, 2019.</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} Historian [[Eric Foner]] agrees the Constitution's Three-Fifths Compromise gave protection to slavery.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery|last=Foner|first=Eric|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|page=16|year=2010|isbn=978-0393080827|language=en}}</ref>

Supporters of the College have provided many counterarguments to the charges that it defended slavery. [[Abraham Lincoln]], the president who helped abolish slavery, won a College majority in [[1860 United States presidential election|1860]] despite winning 39.8% of citizen's votes.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Guelzo|first1=Adam|last2=Hulme|first2=James|title=In Defense of the Electoral College|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college/?|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=November 15, 2016}}</ref> This, however, was a clear plurality of a popular vote divided among four main candidates.

Benner notes that Jefferson's first margin of victory would have been wider had the entire slave population been counted on a ''per capita'' basis.<ref name="benner"/> He also notes that some of the most vociferous critics of a national popular vote at the constitutional convention were delegates from free states, including [[Gouverneur Morris]] of Pennsylvania, who declared that such a system would lead to a "great evil of cabal and corruption," and [[Elbridge Gerry]] of Massachusetts, who called a national popular vote "radically vicious".<ref name="benner">{{cite web |last1=Benner |first1=Dave |date=November 15, 2016 |title=Blog: Cherry Picking James Madison |url=https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/cherry-picking-james-madison/ |work=[[Donald Livingston#Abbeville Institute|Abbeville Institute]] |type=}}</ref>

Delegates [[Oliver Ellsworth]] and [[Roger Sherman]] of Connecticut, a state which had adopted a gradual emancipation law three years earlier, also criticized a national popular vote.<ref name=benner/> Of like view was [[Charles Cotesworth Pinckney]], a member of Adams' [[Federalist Party]], presidential candidate in 1800. He hailed from South Carolina and was a slaveholder.<ref name=benner/> In [[1824 United States presidential election|1824]], [[Andrew Jackson]], a slaveholder from Tennessee, was similarly defeated by [[John Quincy Adams]], a strong [[John Quincy Adams and abolitionism|critic of slavery]].<ref name=benner/>

=== Fourteenth Amendment ===
[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 2|Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment]] requires a state's representation in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] to be reduced if the state denies the right to vote to any male citizen aged 21 or older, unless on the basis of "participation in rebellion, or other crime". The reduction is to be proportionate to such people denied a vote. This amendment refers to "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States" (among other elections). It is the only part of the Constitution currently alluding to electors being selected by popular vote.

On May 8, 1866, during a debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, [[Thaddeus Stevens]], the leader of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] in the House of Representatives, delivered a speech on the amendment's intent. Regarding Section 2, he said:<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20111027145627/http://america.library4history.org/VFW-1865-McKinley/RECONSTRUCTION/FOURTEENTH-AMENDMENT.html The Fourteenth Amendment from America Book 9]}} (archived from {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20111027145627/http://america.library4history.org/VFW-1865-McKinley/RECONSTRUCTION/FOURTEENTH-AMENDMENT.html the original]}} on 2011-10-27)</ref>
{{blockquote|The second section I consider the most important in the article. It fixes the basis of representation in Congress. If any State shall exclude any of her adult male citizens from the elective franchise, or abridge that right, she shall forfeit her right to representation in the same proportion. The effect of this provision will be either to compel the States to grant universal suffrage or so shear them of their power as to keep them forever in a hopeless minority in the national Government, both legislative and executive.<ref>The selected papers of Thaddeus Stevens, v. 2, Stevens, Thaddeus, 1792–1868, Palmer, Beverly Wilson, 1936, Ochoa, Holly Byers, 1951, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Digital Research Library, 2011, pp. 135–36.</ref>}}

Federal law ({{usc|2|6}}) implements Section 2's mandate.

=== Meeting of electors ===
{{See also|Electoral Count Act}}
[[File:2020 presidential election US electoral college certificates.jpg|thumb|Cases of certificates of the electoral college votes confirming the results of the 2020 US election, after they had been removed from the House Chambers by congressional staff during the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]]]]
[[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 4: Election day|Article II, Section 1, Clause 4]] of the Constitution authorizes Congress to fix the day on which the electors shall vote, which must be the same day throughout the United States. And both [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 3: Electoral College|Article II, Section 1, Clause 3]] and the [[Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twelfth Amendment]] that replaced it specifies that "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."

In 1887, Congress passed the [[Electoral Count Act]], now codified in [[Title 3 of the United States Code|Title 3, Chapter 1]] of the United States Code, establishing specific procedures for the counting of the electoral votes. The law was passed in response to the disputed [[1876 United States presidential election|1876 presidential election]], in which several states submitted competing slates of electors. Among its provisions, the law established deadlines that the states must meet when selecting their electors, resolving disputes, and when they must cast their electoral votes.<ref name=CRS/><ref>{{cite web|first=Edward-Isaac|last=Dovere|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-biden-electoral-count-act-1887/615994/|title=The Deadline That Could Hand Trump the Election|publisher=The Atlantic|date=2020-09-09|access-date=2020-11-09}}</ref>

From 1948 to 2022, the date fixed by Congress for the meeting of the Electoral College was "on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".<ref>{{cite web|title=U.S.C. Title 3 - THE PRESIDENT | url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title3/html/USCODE-2011-title3-chap1-sec7.htm|date=2011|access-date=2024-06-28}}</ref> As of 2022, with the passing of "S.4573 - Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022", this was changed to be "on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment".<ref name="electoral2022"/>

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, disqualifies all elected and appointed [[Federal government of the United States|federal officials]] from being electors. The [[Office of the Federal Register]] is charged with administering the Electoral College.<ref name="Zak">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-electoral-college-isnt-a-real-place-but-someone-has-to-answer-its-phones-these-days/2016/11/16/816f3838-aaa7-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html|title=The electoral college isn't a real place: But someone has to answer all the angry phone calls these days |first=Dan|last=Zak|date=November 16, 2016|newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=November 21, 2016}}</ref>

After the vote, each state sends to Congress a certified record of their electoral votes, called the Certificate of Vote. These certificates are opened during a [[joint session of Congress]], held on January 6<ref>{{usc|3|15}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} unless another date is specified by law, and read aloud by the incumbent vice president, acting in his capacity as ''president of the Senate''. If any person receives an absolute majority of electoral votes, that person is declared the winner.<ref>{{cite web|title=What is the Electoral College?|url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html|work=U.S. Electoral College|publisher=[[National Archives and Records Administration]]|location=Washington, D.C.|access-date=August 2, 2018}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}} If there is a tie, or if no candidate for either or both offices receives an absolute majority, then choice falls to Congress in a procedure known as a [[contingent election]].