THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION AND THE 12TH AMENDMENT: Under the original Constitution of 1787, a body called "The Electoral College" was set up. Each state was allotted a number of delegates ("electors"), based on the state's total number of U.S. Senators and Representatives. Each elector then voted for one person. The one receiving the most votes became President and the runner-up became Vice President. If no candidate had a majority or if there was a tie, the President was selected by the House of Representatives (voting by states with each state having one vote) and the Senate picked the Vice President. Almost immediately -- as soon as political parties came into existence -- this system proved unsatisfactory because it meant that the President and Vice President would probably come from opposite parties (as in 1796). In addition, electors of the party not having a majority of electors could throw their weight behind a majority party member who was not the real choice of the majority party (as in 1800).

Therefore, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution made a change in the system, effective as of the election of 1804. Under the revised system, there was still an Electoral College and its members were still selected in the same way, but there was one major change. Each elector now had two votes -- one for President and one for Vice President. If there was a tie vote or if no candidate for President had a majority, the House of Representatives, with each state having one vote, made the selection from among the three candidates who had the most votes. An inconclusive vote for Vice President was settled by the U.S. Senate. This system has been in effect ever since.

A COMPROMISE SYSTEM: This complex system was actually a compromise. The states with larger populations wanted a system based completely on total population. The states with more people would then have had the largest voice in selecting the President. The smaller states, on the other hand, wanted a system in which each state, regardless of population, would have equal power. The system that was set up was, therefore, based partially on the House of Representatives, where the more populous states had more power, and partially on the Senate, where each state was equal.

HOW WELL HAS THIS SYSTEM WORKED? There have been 51 elections held under this system. In 47, the same person would have been elected whether this system or a system of direct election had been used, with each individual voter voting for one candidate. In the other four, however (1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000), a direct election system would have produced a different President. Because of these differences, there have been proposals over the years to change the system.

WHY CAN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ELECT A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT THAN WOULD BE CHOSEN UNDER A DIRECT POPULAR ELECTION SYSTEM? There are several reasons why the present system and a direct election system produce different results. The way each state casts its electoral votes is determined not by the federal constitution but by the legislature of each state. Early on, the legislatures of the larger states realized that if all their electors voted for the same candidate, their state's power would be much greater than if the individual electors split their votes among more than one candidate.

They therefore adopted a procedure called the "unit rule" or "winner-take-all" system under which the candidate winning the most popular votes in a state would get all the state's electoral votes. Each state could have decided for itself whether or not to use the unit rule, but eventually even the smaller states decided to use it rather than split their votes and thus diminish their power. Today, all states but two (Maine and Nebraska) use the winner-take-all procedure in casting their electoral votes, but this procedure benefits primarily the larger states.

In addition, however, because the total number of electoral votes is fixed at 538, giving even the very smallest states at least three electoral votes means there are not enough votes left over to provide the more populous states with a truly proportionate share of the total. Mathe- matically, this means that a voter in one of the very small states can have as much as five times the influence as a large-state voter.

There are other reasons why the present system can produce a different winner than direct election. For example, a state casts the same number of electoral votes regardless of how many voters turn out in the state on Election Day. This gives an advantage to voters in states where the turn-out is low. In effect they vote for the "no-shows" as well as for themselves. But this discrepancy is not nearly as important as the winner-take-all procedure and the fact that even the smallest states get at least three electoral votes.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS: The League of Women Voters opposes the Electoral College system as now set up, and advocates election of the President by direct popular vote. But there are also other proposals. One is called a "proportional system." Under it, each state's electoral votes would be divided according to the number of popular votes won in the state by each candidate (excepting three votes which would go to whichever candidate won the popular plurality in the state.) This system would benefit the smaller states by eliminating the "winner-take-all" feature which helps primarily the more populous states. Another proposal, the "district system", would award electoral votes on the basis of Congressional districts. Whichever candidate won the most votes in a district would get a single electoral vote and two votes would be awarded to the statewide popular-vote winner. Like the proportional system, this system would benefit the smaller states by eliminating the unit rule that helps the larger states. In addition, however, because in most states Congressional districts are drawn by state legislatures which could "gerrymander" the district lines to aid whichever political party controlled the legislature, this system could introduce a new and highly partisan way of influencing the outcome.

HOW WILL THE PRESENT SYSTEM WORK IN NEW YORK IN 2008-2009? On November 4, 2008 voters in each state will cast their ballots. The New York voters will actually be voting for a slate of 31 electors chosen by each of the state's political parties. The parties generally choose prominent officeholders and other influential party members to make up their slates. (The actual candidates for President will have been selected by the national party conventions held during the summer.) In December, the electors of the party which wins the state's popular vote will meet in Albany and formally cast their 31 votes for the presidential candidate of their party*, and the results will be sent to Congress where, together with the electoral votes of all the other states and the District of Columbia, they will be opened and tallied by the new Congress meeting in early January, 2009. Because there are a total of 538 electoral votes, the candidate receiving a majority -- 270 votes -- will be declared the winner and the new President will then be sworn in on Tuesday, January 20th. If no candidate has at least 270 electoral votes, the choice will be turned over to the House of Representatives as specified by the Constitution. (This has not happened since 1824.)

*There is no federal rule requiring electors to vote for the presidential candidate to whom they are pledged, but most states do have such laws. Over the years there have been a few instances of "faithless electors" voting for candidates other than the one to whom they are pledged, but the final outcome has never been affected by such votes.

You Have the RIGHT to Vote !

Call the LWVNYC Telephone Infomation Service for your voting questions 212-725-3541
Also take a look at: How to Be a Voter, which details voting procedures once inside the voting booth.