Electoral College, Presidential Norms, and Election Reforms: Key Concepts and Cases

Source citation — Christina Villegas, "Electing the People's President: The Popular Origins of the Electoral College"

Christina Villegas, "Electing the People's President: The Popular Origins of the Electoral College." (Article arguing the Electoral College was designed to secure a national majority via electors and not to deny popular influence.)

Villegas — central thesis

The Electoral College was created to preserve popular influence by producing a non-parochial national majority through electors; the Framers did not design it as an aristocratic block against the people.

Villegas — key reasons the Framers preferred electors to direct election

Practical concerns: large country size, poor communications, local biases/favorite-son voting, and the need for electors to deliberate and pick candidates of national stature.

Villegas — view on federalism explanation for the Electoral College

Villegas argues that while state-related components were compromises, preserving state power was not the Framers' primary philosophical purpose; the aim was to facilitate popular influence across the whole nation.

Villegas — evidence used to support her thesis

Constitutional Convention debates (Wilson, Madison, Hamilton), Federalist Papers (esp. Federalist 68), ratifying convention comments, and historical context showing electors were meant as popular agents.

Source citation — Darrell M. West, "It's Time to Abolish the Electoral College" (Brookings)

Darrell M. West, "It's Time to Abolish the Electoral College." Brookings Institution policy paper arguing for abolition due to modern inequality, geographic disparity, and recurring anti-majoritarian outcomes.

West — central thesis

The Electoral College should be abolished because it systematically misrepresents voters (over-represents small states), creates recurring mismatches with the popular vote, and is ill-suited to modern demographic and economic realities.

West — historical contested elections cited

1800 (Jefferson/Burr tie), 1824 (House chooses Adams over Jackson), 1876 (Hayes/Tilden disputed election and bargain), 2000 (Bush v. Gore), 2016 (Trump won EC but lost popular vote).

West — faithless electors issue & legal context

West noted historical faithless electors and the Baca v. Hickenlooper Tenth Circuit uncertainty; he discusses how faithless electors and court rulings could nullify state popular votes (pre-Chiafalo context).

West — main modern arguments vs. Electoral College

Overrepresentation of small states (2-senator baseline), geographic concentration of GDP and population, partisan shifts in public opinion about abolition, and risk of anti-majoritarian norms becoming regular.

West — policy solutions he discusses

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), state allocation changes (district method), and constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

Source citation — Bob Bauer & Jack Goldsmith, "Reconstructing the Presidency," from After Trump

Bob Bauer & Jack Goldsmith, chapter "Reconstructing the Presidency" in After Trump — examines Trump-era breakdowns in presidential norms and proposes legal reforms to limit presidential abuse.

Bauer & Goldsmith — central thesis

Trump exposed flaws in presidential norms and legal ambiguities; reform is necessary to codify norms, constrain conflicts of interest, strengthen accountability, and protect democratic institutions.

Bauer & Goldsmith — examples of norm violations by Trump they cite

Refusal to release tax returns, attacks on DOJ and judiciary, use of presidency for business/diplomacy gain, urging law enforcement to target opponents, and rhetorical attacks undermining institutions.

Bauer & Goldsmith — sample reforms proposed (list 4)

Ban presidents from active business involvement; require congressional approval for foreign-state income; ban recent campaign staff from DOJ roles; require disclosure of tax returns; restrict self-pardons.

Textbook §12.2 — main topic

Section 12.2 explains the presidential election process, rise of political parties, evolution from king caucus to primaries, and how primaries changed candidate selection.

Textbook §12.2 — "King caucus" meaning

Informal gatherings of Congress members who selected presidential nominees for their party before popular primaries and conventions became dominant.

Textbook §12.2 — 1824 election significance

By 1824 many states used popular elections for electors; Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but John Quincy Adams won the presidency via the House — a key example of popular vs. institutional selection tensions.

Textbook §12.2 — how primaries changed nomination dynamics

Primaries allowed direct voter participation, weakened party regulars' control, incentivized candidates to appeal to partisan bases, and changed delegate allocation rules (winner-take-all vs proportional).

Class notes — NPVIC definition & status

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: states pledge electors to national popular vote winner; effective only when signatories hold 270 EVs. As of West's piece ~15 states + DC had joined (short of 270).

Class notes — winner-take-all explained

The rule by which most states award all electoral votes to the candidate winning the state's popular vote; Maine and Nebraska are exceptions using district allocation.

Class notes — elector selection in practice

Political parties choose slates of electors before the general election; when voters vote for president, they actually vote for that slate; rules vary by state.

Class notes — Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) — key point

Supreme Court upheld state authority to require electors to follow their state's popular vote and to penalize faithless electors.

Class notes — faithless electors: historical data

Historically about 157 electors cast votes contrary to expectations; modern concern heightened in 2016 when seven electors defected.

Class notes — Baca v. Hickenlooper context

Tenth Circuit ruling (pre-Chiafalo) suggested limits on state authority to penalize electors, creating uncertainty over enforcement of elector pledges.

Class notes — electors & Constitution: are they bound?

Constitution does not explicitly bind electors to state popular vote; states have passed laws to bind them; Chiafalo confirms states can enforce such laws.

Class notes — Head of State vs Head of Government (quiz fact)

Head of State = ceremonial national figure; Head of Government = chief policymaker/administrator. In the U.S., the president serves as both.

Class notes — CA vs WY elector math (memorize)

Example: California ~39 million people / 54 EVs ≈ 722,000 people per elector; Wyoming ~587,000 people / 3 EVs ≈ 195,000 people per elector — demonstrates malapportionment.

Contested election — 1800 significance

Tie between Jefferson & Burr exposed flaws in electoral voting procedure; led to the 12th Amendment separating President & VP votes.

Contested election — 1824 significance

Jackson won most popular & electoral votes but not majority; House selected John Quincy Adams — example of House contingency and elite bargaining.

Contested election — 1876 significance

Tilden won popular vote but disputed electoral votes led to commission awarding presidency to Hayes, who then ended Reconstruction-era military enforcement in the South.

Contested election — 2000 significance

Florida recount disputes led the U.S. Supreme Court to halt recounts (Bush v. Gore); Bush won EC though Gore won popular vote — spotlighted ballot design and equal protection issues.

Contested election — 2016 significance

Trump won Electoral College by 74 votes while losing national popular vote by ~3 million, heightening debates about legitimacy and calls for abolition.

Faithless elector — definition & risk

An elector who votes contrary to the state's popular vote or pledged candidate; can be symbolic historically but decisive in close elections; legal enforcement clarified by Chiafalo.

NPVIC — pros & cons (short)

Pros: achieves national popular vote without amendment; Cons: legal challenges, political backlash, faithless electors risk, state voters might disagree with state electors voting national result.

Constitutional amendment to abolish EC — feasibility facts

Requires 2/3 of both House & Senate and ratification by 38 states; historically attempted (1934, 1979 votes failed narrowly) — politically difficult.

District method (Maine/Nebraska) — effect & risk

Allocates electors per congressional district plus 2 statewide EVs; could make results more proportional but incentivizes gerrymandering and strategic targeting.

Pros of Electoral College (Heritage arguments — memorize 5)

Protects federalism, encourages broad coalition-building, creates moderate candidates, adds legitimacy and stability to elections, discourages nationwide voter fraud/recounts.

Cons of Electoral College (West & critics — memorize 5)

Anti-majoritarian outcomes, overrepresents small states, focuses campaigns on swing states, possible faithless electors/litigation, mismatch with modern population & economic distribution.

Bauer & Goldsmith — why codify norms into law?

Because norms failed under Trump; unenforceable norms allow norm-busting presidents to act with impunity; codifying reduces dependence on goodwill of future presidents.

Bauer & Goldsmith — DOJ appointment restriction rationale

Prevents politicization of law enforcement by barring immediate campaign staffers from DOJ roles that could be used to target opponents or shield the president.

Key Federalist quote relevant to electors (one-line cue)

Hamilton in Federalist 68: electors are 'men chosen by the people' to exercise deliberate judgment in selecting the President — used by Villegas to argue popular origins.

How primaries can make candidates more extreme — short explanation

Primaries reward candidates who appeal to committed partisan voters (often ideologically extreme) because primary electorates are smaller and more partisan than the general electorate.

Primary order effect — why Iowa & NH matter

Early primaries/caucuses create momentum, media attention, and fundraising advantages that can determine viability before later states vote.

Practical study tip card (for Quizlet)

Memorize timeline (1800, 1824, 1876, 2000, 2016), Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), NPVIC needs 270 EVs, CA/WY EV math, and author theses (Villegas = popular origins; West = abolish; Bauer & Goldsmith = reform presidency).