United States Electoral College
The U.S. Electoral College is a specific electoral college, and is the method by which the President and Vice President of the United States are chosen. The Electoral College was established by Article Two, Section One of the U.S. Constitution, and meets every four years with electors from each state. The electoral process was modified in 1804 with the ratification of the 12th Amendment. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution also modified the College, allowing electors from the District of Columbia to cast votes for the election of the president.
How it works
Indirect election
Voting for President of the United States is an indirect election. Presidential elections take place on the first Tuesday in November, every four years. Although ballots typically list the names of the Presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia actually choose electors when they vote for President. These electors in turn cast the official votes for President. Federal law says that each state's electors meet in their state capitals on the Monday following the second Wednesday of December. There, they cast their electoral votes for President and Vice President. Thus, the Electoral College never meets as one body.
Once voting is complete, a record of the votes is sent to the President of the Senate, who, in the presence of both houses of Congress on the following January 6, opens them up and tallies the votes. The person with the most electoral votes for President, provided that it is an absolute majority, is to be sworn in as the new President on the following January 20 (or 21st if the 20th is a Sunday), and the person with the most electoral votes for Vice President (which must also be an absolute majority) becomes Vice President on the same date. If no person wins a majority of electoral votes for President, the House of Representatives (the one elected at the same time as the vote for President, not the old one) then votes to decide who shall become the next President from among the top three candidates. In so voting, the representatives of each state cast a single block vote, and all state votes count equally, independent of the population of the states. The vote of each state is determined by the majority of the votes cast by that state's representatives; if there is no majority, the state is counted as abstaining. If no candidate gains the votes of more than half the states, voting continues until one does. Since the number of Electors has become an even number after the passage of the 23rd Amendment, even with only two candidates receiving electoral votes this procedure might happen if the Electoral Colledge is ever evenly split in half.
Similarly, if no absolute majority is achieved by a Vice Presidential candidate, the Senate -- again, as it is after the November election -- chooses from among the top two candidates. In the Senate, however, each Senator casts a single vote; voting is not based on states. It is unclear if the sitting Vice President could cast his usual tie-breaking vote if the Senate should be evenly tied on this question.
Electors
The number of electors assigned to each state is equal to the total number of Senators (always two) and Representatives that the state has in Congress, but no Senator or Representative, nor any employee of the federal government, may serve as an elector. The District of Columbia is treated as a state, but can in no event choose more electors than the least populous state (presently 3; however even without this clause D.C.'s current population would have to double to give it more than 3 electors). There are currently 538 electoral votes available in each presidential election (100 Senators + 435 Representatives + 3 electors from the District of Columbia). Therefore, at present, candidates must receive a majority of 270 electoral votes to become President and Vice President.
The process for selecting electors is left by the Constitution to the individual states, thus it varies throughout the United States; the Constitution only mandates that all states do the selection on the same date. 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.
In all but two states, the party that wins the most popular votes becomes that state's electors, essentially a winner-take-all. The two exceptions are the states of Maine and Nebraska, where two of the electors are chosen by the popular vote statewide, and the rest are determined by the popular vote within each Congressional district. For example: Maine has two congressional districts. Of the votes in District 1, Jones gets 20 and Smith gets 15. In District 2, Jones gets 3 and Smith gets 32. In this situation, Smith would receive three of Maine's electoral votes (two for receiving a plurality plus an elector for winning District 2), with Jones getting the fourth (for winning District 1). This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither has ever split its electoral votes. Colorado will have a statewide referendum on the ballots on November 2, 2004, to decide if it should introduce proportional representation into the choosing of its presidential electors. In South Carolina, electors were chosen by the state legislature until 1860.
The electors in each state vote on separate ballots for President and Vice President, at least one of whom must not be an inhabitant of that state. This restriction is in place to prevent electors from voting solely for the "favorite sons" from their home state. To avoid this, political parties make sure to nominate presidential and vice presidential candidates from two different states. In the 2000 election, Dick Cheney (who has residences in Texas, Wyoming, and Virginia) reverted his voter registration from Texas to Wyoming so that he could be on the same ticket as George W. Bush, who lives in Texas.
(It is this rule that generally prevents the President and Vice President coming from the same state. There is no formal requirement for them to come from different states, but since they could not be simultaneously voted for by the same electors, in order for both to be from the same state at least one could not be elected purely by the electoral college but would have to have been either selected by the House of Representatives or Senate as appropriate after no candidate secured a majority in the college, or chosen mid-term to fill a vacancy; or, a party who is very sure to win even so could nominate two candidates from the same state and then forfeit the electoral votes for Vice President from that state.)
In practice, the voters choose slates of electors pledged to candidates for president and vice president; in most states, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot. Legally, the electors are free to cast their votes for anyone they choose; in practice, electors almost never vote for a candidate they are not pledged to (as they are chosen by the political parties specifically for voting for that candidate). When this does happen, it is most often a case of the elector voting the pledged candidate for Vice-President as President and vice-versa, usually as a protest. For example, this happened in 1988, when an elector pledged to Michael Dukakis voted for Lloyd Bentsen to protest the Electoral College system. In 2000 an elector from the District of Columbia cast a blank ballot to protest the District's lack of a voting representative in Congress. The last time an elector voted for the candidates of a different party was 1972, when Republican elector Roger MacBride voted for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Theodora Nathan. This was the first electoral vote cast for a woman. Several states, but not all, have laws stating that if an elector becomes a "faithless" elector and does not vote for the candidate to which he is pledged he can be replaced or even punished, but the constitutionality of such laws is debated and has never been tested.
History
Scholars continue to debate the reasons for the adoption of the Electoral College. Some believe it was created to protect small states. Others believe that the Founding Fathers intended to create a system of indirect election whereby the electors would come to a carefully considered decision to nominate a selection of good candidates and then the House of Representatives would again make a careful consideration of the names presented. Others still believe the system of electing the President was given little thought beyond a desire to have George Washington as the first President. Still others hold that it was devised as a compromise between the election of a President by popular vote and by the Congress, although initially the electors were selected by the state legislatures and it was not until later that states started holding a popular poll for the Presidential elections to determine how they would cast their votes.
The electoral college may have been implemented to negotiate compromises in cases of a very badly split vote where each state was pushing its own native son. The U.S. presidential primary and the emergence of a two-party system has largely rendered this historical. Others have noted that the Electoral College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, thereby sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation.
Regardless of why the system was chosen, the term "electoral college" is not used in the U.S. Constitution, and it wasn't until the early 1800s that it came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."
Section 1, Article II of the Constitution says, "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." It then goes on to describe how the electors vote for President.
Originally, each elector voted for two persons. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be President, while the individual who was in second place became Vice President. If no-one received a majority of votes, then the House of Representatives would choose between the five highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen President would become Vice President. If there was ever a tie for second, then the Senate would choose the Vice President.
The original plan, however, did not forsee the development of political parties. In 1796, for instance, the Federalist John Adams came in first, and the Democrat-Republican Thomas Jefferson came second. Thus, the President and Vice President were from different parties. An even greater problem occurred in 1800, when Democrat-Republicans Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied the vote. It was intended that Jefferson was the Presidential contender, while Burr was the Vice Presidential one. However, electors did not differentiate between the two, nor could they under the system of the time, and most electors cast one vote for each. The election was then thrown into the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Democrat-Republicans' opponents, the Federalists. The House had to vote thirty-five times before Alexander Hamilton declared his support for Thomas Jefferson, who won on the thirty-sixth ballot. Burr became Vice President. For this and numerous other reasons he bore a grudge against Hamilton, whom he later killed in a duel.
To address the problems of the 1800 election, the Twelfth Amendment was passed. It made some minor and major changes to the Constitution. Firstly, electors would no longer cast two ballots for President. Rather, they would cast one vote for President and a separate vote for Vice President. The individual receiving a majority of votes in a particular election would be elected. If no-one received a majority in the Presidential election, then the House of Representatives would choose between the top three, again voting by state. Similarly, the Senate chooses between the top two in the case of the Vice President.
It should be noted that under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, there is no requirement for a state to poll its voters. The state legislature can in theory appoint the electors as it likes, and, until 1860, South Carolina did just this. Furthermore, in 1788 the concept of "democracy" was widely seen as analogous to mob-rule, while the idea of political parties was equally frowned upon, and so the idea of a directly elected head of state would have been anathema to many. The Federalist Papers suggest that it was expected that most Presidents would be selected by the House of Representatives, and the order of the articles of Constitution, in which Congress is established in Article I and the presidency in Article II, supports this view.
A controversial system
The United States is one of very few liberal democracies to use neither a direct popular vote, nor a vote by the legislature, to select its chief executive. The Electoral College process is somewhat controversial with strong arguments from both its supporters and detractors. Supporters note that the system has lasted for over two hundred years and protects rural communities and smaller states from the interests of urban centers and large states. Detractors, on the other hand, believe that such a conspiracy of large population states against small population states is an 18th century anxiety and feel that the college is an antiquated system that silences a large minority of votes in every state and is therefore undemocratic.
Supporters of the college
Supporters of the college claim that it acts as a method of amplifying the voting power of an individual voter from a specific state in a U.S. presidential election. Without the Electoral College, with the vote based on majority rule, it would be possible to win a strict majority of votes located in a few geographically restricted areas of the country.
The fear is, without the college, one could campaign and win in only the 10 largest cities in the country, disenfranchising (for one example) the sparsely populated mountain region of the United States. This is illustrated by the fact that the combined total population of the 10 largest cities in the nation is (from the 1995 Statistical Abstract of the United States) almost 21.9 million. The entire population of the mountain region of the United States (op cit.) is 15.2 million. This effect is magnified when the analysis is broadened to the 10 largest metropolitan areas, not just the size of the largest cities proper. This would allow a candidate to focus resources, time, and political capital in winning the greatest numbers of voters in the cities. It is felt that this pressure would apply to all parties, and lead to voters in the sparsely populated West being completely ignored.
An illustrative example where the interests of a metropolitan area directly conflict with those of a state or region exists between the city of Los Angeles (metropolitan population well over 15 million) and the state of Colorado (population 4.3 million) over the issue of river water use.
A direct election would focus candidates' resources on large cities such as Los Angeles. The debate would naturally center on local issues that directly affected Los Angeles citizens. Los Angeles derives a great deal of its water from the Colorado River, originating in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. The amount of water reserved for California has an impact on Colorado significantly and directly, and its use results in much contention. Supporters of the college feel that competing interests such as these are best served by compelling candidates to campaign in smaller states and address their issues. If a direct election was instituted, Colorado's voters would receive less attention, as a candidate would have to campaign over the entire state (the 8th largest in area) for considerably fewer potential votes than the geographically far smaller Los Angeles metropolitan area.
Thus, the intent of the college is to favor a candidate whose appeal is more broadly distributed on a geographical basis across the nation (see the 2000 election below). This may lead to the rare circumstance of giving the election to a candidate who did not win a majority, or even a plurality, of the popular vote. This is seen as preferable to giving the election to one who is favored by a majority of voters but whose support is concentrated in a minority of regions or only by voters in large states.
An additional reason in favor of the Electoral College is that by having fifty-one separate elections, corruption in any single state is limited to the electoral votes of that state. Corruption is most likely to occur in a state in which there is not a strong two party competition. If strong party machines in one party states could add phantom votes to a national total in close elections, the temptation to do so would be irresistible. Also, in the event of an extremely close election, as in 2000, having the Electoral College makes doing a recount much easier, since it may only be necessary to recount in a single state, rather than the entire nation.
Another attribute of the Electoral College is that it often yields a decisive result, when the popular vote can be extremely close. For instance, the 1916, 1948, and 1960 elections were virtual ties, yet in each case, Wilson, Truman, and Kennedy, respectively, won decisively in the Electoral College. The large Electoral College margins enabled the nation to move on with an accepted president. Bill Clinton may be the clearest example of this, winning only 43% of the popular vote in the 1992 election and 49% in the 1996 election. However, he did receive a mandate by winning a clear majority in the Electoral College in both cases.
The Electoral College was originally crafted by the framers of the Constitution in part as a compromise between larger and smaller states, as illustrated above. To elaborate further, Montana had a population of 902,195 in 2000, and has 3 electoral votes. California had 33,871,648 people and 54 electoral votes in 2000. Thus, while California has many more electoral votes to cast, people in Montana individually have a greater influence on their state's electoral votes. California has 627,252 people per electoral vote while Montana has 300,731 people per electoral vote. While largely ignored by Presidential candidates in elections, the smaller states are not as irrelevant as they would be otherwise.
In the 2000 Presidential election, for example, when Al Gore finished just 5 electoral votes behind George W. Bush, a switch of electors from any state, even those as seemingly irrelevant as Montana, would have switched the outcome of the election.
Detractors of the college
Detractors of the college contend that this system is out of date and undemocratic. They advocate direct election of the President by the voters, which might sometimes produce different results than the electoral college system (for example, the 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections). Due to potential differences in voter turnout, it cannot be certain how the results of direct elections in these or any years would have differed. Supporters of direct election argue that it disenfranchises no one, since it gives everyone an equal vote, regardless of which part of the country they live in, and oppose giving disproportionately amplified voting power to voters in small states. In contrast, the Electoral College disenfranchises those voters in every state who cast their votes for the candidate receiving fewer votes in that state. And it also partly disenfranchises voters in larger states by reducing their proportional contribution to the final election result.
Opponents of the Electoral College claim that, in replacing a direct majority of the popular vote as the determinant of who wins the election, supporters of the Electoral College are actually endorsing minority vote as potentially preferable to majority vote.
Opponents also point out that the Electoral College assumes that voters within states vote monolithically, when in fact this is not the case. Many states are often deeply divided over how to vote in a Presidential election. A key element of democracy is that voters disagree among themselves on what they consider their interests, and this happens within states as well as between states. Thus, for example, in the 2000 election, New Hampshire (a small state) gave 48% of its votes to Bush, and 47% to Gore. According to the pro-Electoral College model, as a small state, New Hampshire necessarily voted for its own local interests in supporting Bush. Yet, opponents point out, clearly the vote in that state was deeply divided as to what New Hampshire's "interests" were. This division results in swing states, states which could "go either way" rather than being reliably Democratic or Republican when it comes to the Electoral College. This in itself skews the campaign process, as candidates focus their efforts on states whose electoral votes are in question, rather than individual voters whose ballots are in play, and may contribute to broader sectional divisions. Reliably partisan states may resent the attentions candidates lavish on swing states, and reliably partisan voters are—as described above—reliably not courted by candidates and therefore discouraged from participating in the electoral system at all.
Thus, opponents argue, the Electoral College is based on a flawed assumption of monolithic voting patterns based on local interests which does not bear any relationship to the actual voting process. Supporters would argue that this is mitigated by the fact that states can decide to award their electoral votes proportionately, rather than as winner-take-all, despite the fact that few currently choose to do so.
Opponents also argue that the Electoral College tends to favor a two-party system. Even when a third-party candidate receives a significant number of popular votes, he may not receive a majority in any state and may not garner even a single electoral vote, as was the case of Ross Perot in the 1992 elections.
Yet another problem with the electoral college is what would result if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes, basically an election which fails to elect. In several elections of the Twentieth century, 1912, 1948, 1960, and 1968, third party candidates won electoral votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility in a three-way race no candidate would reach the magic 270 number. If no candidate hit 270, the election would go to the House, where, under special election rules, each state delegation would have one vote, no matter its size. If the House election tied, or if enough delegations split evenly, there would be no winner at all.
Most electoral reform plans in the US include ways to abolish the College.
Supporters of an electoral college with modified rules
Some argue that the biggest problems of the electoral college can be acceptably mitigated by modifying the rules by which votes are allocated. The primary proposal of this type is for states to implement a proportional vote system. Under such a system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being selected to represent only the plurality vote. As an example, consider the 2000 election, in which the George W. Bush / Richard Cheney (Republican) and Albert Gore Jr. / Joseph Lieberman (Democrat) tickets were the primary contenders, with the Ralph Nader / Winona LaDuke (Green) ticket taking a small but noteworthy minority. In California, the approximate proportion of votes for these tickets was 41.65 percent Bush/Cheney, 53.45 percent Gore/Lieberman, and 3.82 percent Nader/LaDuke. Under the current system, all 54 electoral votes were for Gore/Lieberman. Under a simple proportional system, the votes might be distributed as 23 Bush/Cheney, 29 Gore/Lieberman, and 2 Nader/LaDuke. This breakdown is significant not only because it more closely represents the popular vote, but also because it could mitigate the spoiler effect.
The state of Colorado has an initiative on its November 2004 ballot, Amendment 36, which would institute a system of proportional allocation of electors beginning immediately with the 2004 Colorado electoral college members. If the proposal passes, the constitutiality of such a system may be challenged in court. Had such a system been in place in the 2000 election, only 5 of the state's 8 electors would have gone to Bush. Such a change of three electors from Bush to Gore would have changed the outcome of that election.
Other observers argue that the current electoral rules of Maine and Nebraska should be extended nationwide. As previously noted, the winner in those two states is only guaranteed two electoral votes, with the winner of each Congressional district in the state receiving one electoral vote. Using the California example again, Gore won 33 of the state's Congressional districts and the state overall, while Bush won 19 Congressional districts. The state's electoral votes would then have gone 35-19 for Gore.
Alternative systems
The Electoral College requires a majority vote in order for a victor to be declared. In the case of a hypothetical direct election with multiple candidates, the question of majority versus plurality comes into play. In many recent American presidential elections (1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2000), no single candidate achieved an absolute majority of the popular vote. Some nations with direct Presidential voting, such as France, have a second round of voting if no candidate achieves a majority of votes in the first round; in the second round, the election is restricted to the two candidates with the highest number of votes. Some have argued that the French system creates problems of its own; it is possible that the initial vote becomes divided up between so many candidates that someone who is highly undesirable to most voters can make it to the second round of voting, as occurred in 2002 with the rise of candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen to the runoff election. One solution to this problem would be to implement an alternative election system, such as instant runoff voting, approval voting, or condorcet voting.
Another proposed reform is to make the number of electors that each state has the same as its number of Representatives (effectively the same as the current system, except taking -2 electoral votes from each state). This would weaken the proportionality benefit that small states enjoy. If such a system had been in place in 2000, Al Gore would have won in the Electoral College 225-211.
A popular election could occur without amending the constitution. If a sufficient number of states chose their electors by national popular vote rather than state popular vote, then a national popular vote would occur in practice. For example, the eleven largest states, controlling over 270 electoral votes among them, could guarantee that the presidency always goes to the winner of the national popular vote, merely by changing state election law.
Political probabilities
Despite the difficulty of amending the Constitution, it appears that large majorities of Americans favor a direct popular vote. In a 1968 Gallup survey, 81% of Americans favored a direct popular vote, 12% favored retention, and 7% had no opinion. In 1992, pollsters asked Americans this question, "If Perot runs, there is a chance that no presidential candidate will get enough electoral votes to win. If that happens, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to decide who will be the next President. Do you think that is a fair way to choose the President, or should the Constitution be changed?" 31% said it was a fair way, and 61% said the Constitution should be changed.
By some counts, there have been over seven hundred proposed amendments to the Constitution to change, or abolish, the electoral college. In 1989 an amendment to do away with the electoral college passed the House of Representatives with 83% of the vote, 338-70. Predictably, the amendment failed in the Senate, where it only got fifty-four affirmative votes.
Regardless of how opponents of the system feel, it is unlikely that the system will soon be changed. Changing the system requires amending the Constitution, and amending the Constitution requires ratification of three-fourths of the States. Smaller states would be unlikely to ratify such an amendment, as their votes would count for less under direct popular vote than under the current electoral college system.
Also, removing the system would weaken the domination of the two large political parties which control most aspects of politics in the United States, so it would be difficult to imagine either party machine backing such an alteration.
Debate over the merit of the Electoral College came to a head after the 2000 Presidential election, with some politicians, such as Senator Hillary Clinton, calling for a Constitutional amendment abolishing the system. Clinton conceded that the chances of enacting such a change were slim, and the idea has not been vigorously pursued since the 2000 election.
Electoral votes
Electoral votes are determined decennially by the United States Census (see also United States Congressional Apportionment). The electoral vote distributions for the 2004 and 2008 elections are as follows.
Alphabetically
|
Alabama - 9 Alaska - 3 Arizona - 10 Arkansas - 6 California - 55 Colorado - 9 Connecticut - 7 D.C. - 3 Delaware - 3 Florida - 27 Georgia - 15 |
Hawaii - 4 Idaho - 4 Illinois - 21 Indiana - 11 Iowa - 7 Kansas - 6 Kentucky - 8 Louisiana - 9 Maine - 4 Maryland - 10 | Massachusetts - 12 Michigan - 17 Minnesota - 10 Mississippi - 6 Missouri - 11 Montana - 3 Nebraska - 5 Nevada - 5 New Hampshire - 4 New Jersey - 15 | New Mexico- 5 New York - 31 North Carolina - 15 North Dakota - 3 Ohio - 20 Oklahoma - 7 Oregon - 7 Pennsylvania - 21 Rhode Island - 4 South Carolina - 8 | South Dakota - 3 Tennessee - 11 Texas - 34 Utah - 5 Vermont - 3 Virginia - 13 Washington - 11 West Virginia - 5 Wisconsin - 10 Wyoming - 3 |
Numerically
|
California - 55 |
Virginia - 13 |
Alabama - 9 |
Kansas - 6 |
New Hampshire - 4 |
The 2000 election
The 2000 election usefully illustrates the debate. The various totals are:
- Gore had a plurality of the popular vote with 51,003,926 votes
- Bush had 50,456,062 votes
- Nader had 2,858,843 votes
- Bush won the electoral vote with 271 votes
- Gore had 266 electoral votes
- Nader had 0 electoral votes
- Gore won 42 of the top 50 U.S. metro areas
- Bush won 8 of the top 50 U.S. metro areas
- Gore won 20 states
- Bush won 30 states
- Gore won 677 counties
- Bush won 2,434 counties [1]
![[1]](http://www.polidata.org/maps/Cy00p1cb.gif){kind=link}
- Bush won Florida with 2,912,790 votes (48.85%), to Gore's 2,912,253 (48.84%); but Bush received all 27 electoral votes for that state, while Gore received none. (For more information on Florida, see Bush v. Gore)
- Gore won New Mexico with 47.91% of the vote, slightly more than Bush at 47.85% (286,783 votes to 286,417); but Gore received all 5 electoral votes from that state, and Bush received none.
- Bush won New Hampshire with 48.07% of the vote, compared to Gore's 46.80% (273,559 votes to 266,348); but Bush got all 4 electoral votes for that state, while Gore received none.
- Gore won Oregon with 46.96% of the vote, compared to Bush's 46.52% (720,342 votes to 713,577); but Gore received all 7 electoral votes from that state, and Bush received none.
See also
- Other electoral colleges.
External links
- Electoral-Vote.com (or [2]) - Visual state-by-state current electoral totals of the current (2004) election.
- The Electoral College - by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration
- League of Women Voters - A web page from the League of Women Voters advocating direct election and the abolition of the electoral college
- Math Against Tyranny - an article describing MIT researcher Alan Natapoff's analysis favoring the electoral college system
- Outcomes of Presidential Elections and the House Size - The Neubauer-Zeitlin analysis shows that the winner of the 2000 presidential election was determined in 1941 when the House size was fixed at 435. Had the House size been set at 500, then Gore would have won the 2000 election.
- US presidential electoral system - A mathematical analysis of the US presidential system, showing that this system is biased toward populous states, giving a citizen of California roughly four times more power than one of Montana in the choice of the US president.