⇒ Devised by Founding Fathers as a method of indirectly electing the President

⇒ Each state has two senators plus at least one House representative, for a minimum of three votes in the electoral college (California has 55 Electoral College Votes, whereas Wyoming and Alaska only have 3)

⇒ Total of 538 Electoral College Votes. A candidate needs 270 needed to win the presidency

⇒ In all but 2 states, the winner of the popular vote gets all the electoral college votes

⇒ You can lose the majority vote and still win (e.g. Trump lost the popular vote by 2.7 million)

⇒ First Past The Post distorts the results (e.g. in 1996, Bill Clinton won 49% of the popular vote but over 70% of electoral college votes)

⇒ Unfair to 3rd parties e.g. Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992 but failed to win a single electoral college vote as his support was too thinly spread

⇒ System forces candidates to spend time and money on swing states and ignore the safe states. This can lead to feelings of alienation. Voters in these states see little point in voting. In Florida, Trump won by 1.3%.

⇒ Possible for 269 – 269 electoral college tie. Narrowly avoided in Bush v. Gore 2000 election

⇒ Electors used to be better educated, now they are no different to everyone else

⇒ Preserves the voice of small population states

⇒ Shows importance of federalism

⇒ The electoral college requires candidates to campaign across the entire US (Donald Trump tweeted saying that with a national vote he would have campaigned in New York, Florida and California)

⇒ The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure support for candidates was broad as well as deep

⇒ Promotes a 2 horse race and decisive results, meaning the winner will tend to have absolute majority. This has happened in 26 of the last 39 elections

⇒ All alternatives would not have altered the 2000 result

⇒ Elecotral reforms highly unlikely to pass as they need approval of the small population states

⇒ Electors in each state automatically have to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state, prevents faithless electors (adopted by North Carolina)

⇒ Difficult to adopt nationwide because the Constitution is specific about the freedoms of electors to choose

⇒ Used in Maine and Nebraska

⇒ Electoral College Votes are awarded separately to the winner of each Congressional district. The remaining two are awarded to the winner of the state-wide poll

⇒ Could benefit 3rd party candidates

⇒ Would have to be a constitutional amendment or national changing of laws within state legislatures

⇒ Romney would have won in 2012 by 10 electoral college votes votes, despite losing the popular vote by 4%

⇒ Electoral College Votes awarded in proportion to the votes gained in each state

⇒ 3rd parties would do well (e.g. Perot would've had 100 votes in 1992), so the republican and democrats won't support a change to the electoral system in this way.

⇒ With the electoral college abolished the President would be elected based on the popular vote. Al Gore and Hillary would've become President under this system

⇒ Only a constitutional amendment would bring this about, and small states would oppose

⇒ 3rd parties would stand no chance

⇒ Candidates would never visit small states or tailor policy for thinly-populated areas

⇒ Next check out our notes on primaries, National Conventions, and the General Election 2016

⇒ Also see the next notes on campaign finance