- 1. Overview
- 2. Etymology
- 3. Cultural Impact
This article, a meticulous dissection of proposed amendments aimed at overhauling the United States Electoral College , is in dire need of substantiation. It’s a skeleton, rattling with facts, but lacking the flesh of verifiable sources. Without them, it risks becoming mere conjecture, a ghost story whispered in the halls of political discourse. The imperative is clear: bolster this narrative with citations, or risk its dissolution into the ether of unverified claims.
Proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments
The very fabric of the United States Constitution is designed to be adaptable, a living document meant to evolve with the nation it governs. A crucial mechanism for this evolution lies in the process of proposing amendments, a pathway fraught with deliberation and requiring broad consensus. Over the years, a recurring theme in these proposed alterations has been the structure of presidential elections, specifically the role and impact of the Electoral College . Several significant attempts have been made to either abolish it entirely or diminish its influence, advocating instead for a system where the US president and vice president are chosen by the direct national popular vote. These proposals, often spurred by contentious elections or perceived inequities, have sparked intense debate, revealing deep divisions in how Americans envision the democratic process.
Bayh–Celler Amendment (1969–1970)
The closest the United States has ever come to dismantling the Electoral College was during the 91st Congress, a period spanning from 1969 to 1971. The impetus for this significant push was the deeply unsettling outcome of the 1968 United States presidential election . In that contest, Richard Nixon secured victory by amassing 301 electoral votes, a substantial 56% of the total, while his opponent, Hubert Humphrey , garnered 191 electoral votes, representing 35.5%. A third candidate, George Wallace , managed to capture 46 electoral votes, or 8.5%. This electoral distribution, however, stood in stark contrast to the popular vote. Nixon’s margin over Humphrey was a mere 511,944 votes, translating to 43.5% for Nixon and 42.9% for Humphrey – a difference of less than one percentage point. This dramatic disparity between the popular will and the electoral outcome ignited public concern and fueled calls for reform, suggesting a fundamental disconnect in the representative nature of the election.
In response to these widespread anxieties, Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, then the influential chairman of the House Judiciary Committee , introduced House Joint Resolution 681. This resolution was not a mere suggestion; it was a formal proposal for a constitutional amendment designed to replace the Electoral College. Celler’s vision was to institute a more straightforward two-round system , drawing inspiration from the electoral processes in French presidential elections . The proposed mechanism stipulated that the presidential and vice-presidential ticket achieving at least 40% of the national popular vote would win the election outright. Should no ticket meet this 40% threshold, a runoff election would be conducted, pitting the two pairs of candidates who received the highest number of votes in the initial round. The amendment carefully defined a “pair” as “two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President,” emphasizing the joint nature of the ticket.
The proposal garnered significant traction within the House. On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee, after considerable deliberation, voted 28 to 6 in favor of approving the amendment. The ensuing debate on the House floor commenced on September 11, 1969, and ultimately concluded with the proposal passing with substantial bipartisan support on September 18, 1969. The vote was 339 in favor and 70 against, a testament to the broad appeal of direct election. President Nixon, recognizing the momentum and public sentiment, publicly endorsed the amendment on September 30, 1969, urging the Senate to pass its companion version, Senate Joint Resolution 1, which was spearheaded by Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana.
The prospect of ratification by the states also appeared promising, at least initially. On October 8, 1969, The New York Times reported that an estimated 30 state legislatures were either “certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate.” To become law, ratification by 38 state legislatures would be necessary. However, the landscape was not entirely favorable. Six states remained undecided, six leaned toward opposition, and eight were firmly against the measure.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, on August 14, 1970, signaled its support for the proposal, forwarding its report advocating for passage to the full Senate. The committee’s vote mirrored the House’s initial approval, with 11 members in favor and 6 opposed. Those dissenting—Democratic Senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas, and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, alongside Republican Senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina—voiced concerns that while the existing Electoral College system had its imperfections, it had, on the whole, served the nation adequately. Senator Bayh, however, believed his measure was only a dozen votes shy of the 67 needed for Senate passage. He appealed to President Nixon to actively lobby undecided Republican senators, but Nixon, while not retracting his earlier endorsement, declined to make further personal appeals.
The Senate began open debate on the amendment on September 8, 1970. However, the proceedings were quickly ensnared by a filibuster , primarily led by a coalition of Southern senators and conservatives from smaller states. Their argument centered on the fear that abolishing the Electoral College would diminish the political influence of their respective states. On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture , intended to end the filibuster, was put to a vote. It garnered 54 votes in favor and 36 against, falling short of the required two-thirds majority. A second cloture attempt on September 29, 1970, met a similar fate, with 53 votes for and 34 against. Faced with this legislative deadlock, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana moved to set the proposal aside, allowing the Senate to address other pressing matters. The Bayh–Celler amendment, ultimately, never resurfaced and died with the conclusion of the 91st Congress on January 3, 1971.
Every Vote Counts Amendment (2005)
The “Every Vote Counts Amendment” represented another significant attempt to realign the presidential election process with the principle of direct popular vote. Introduced in the US Congress as a joint resolution, it sought to amend the US Constitution by abolishing the Electoral College and instituting a system where the president and vice president would be elected directly by the national popular vote. The core of this proposal was to ensure that the election would be determined by a simple plurality of the votes cast nationwide.
This specific amendment was initially introduced by US Representative Gene Green of Texas, a Democrat, on January 4, 2005. Green subsequently reintroduced the legislation on January 7, 2009, as H.J.Res. 9. The legislative landscape during the 111th Congress also saw the introduction of two related joint resolutions. One, H.J.Res. 36, was sponsored by US Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois, also a Democrat, and it aimed to require a majority vote for the presidency. The other, S.J.Res. 4, was introduced by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Democrat, and proposed to leave the method of election to a future Act of Congress . Despite these various efforts, all three resolutions ultimately met their demise in committee, never advancing beyond that stage during the 111th Congress.
Text of Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment, as articulated in its text, laid out a clear framework for a direct popular election system:
Section 1. This section unequivocally stated that “The President and Vice President shall be elected by the people of the several States and the district constituting the seat of government of the United States.” This clause firmly established the principle of direct election by the citizenry.
Section 2. This section addressed the qualifications for electors. It proposed that electors would possess the same qualifications required for electors of Senators and Representatives in Congress from their respective states. However, it introduced flexibility by allowing state legislatures to prescribe less restrictive residency requirements and empowering Congress to establish uniform age qualifications, potentially overriding or supplementing existing standards. This section offered a complex interplay between state and federal authority in defining voter eligibility within the new electoral framework.
Section 3. This was the pivotal clause determining the election outcome. It declared that “The persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected.” This provision clearly indicated a plurality system, where the candidate or ticket with the most votes wins, without the necessity of achieving an overall majority or resorting to a runoff.
Section 4. This section focused on the mechanics of casting ballots for the joint ticket. It mandated that “Each elector shall cast a single vote jointly applicable to President and Vice President.” Crucially, it also stipulated that “Names of candidates may not be joined unless they shall have consented thereto and no candidate may consent to the candidate’s name being joined with that of more than one other person.” This aimed to prevent confusion and ensure that candidates willingly agreed to their pairing on the ballot, while also limiting the potential for fragmented candidacies.
Section 5. This section granted Congress specific powers to address unforeseen circumstances. It empowered Congress “by law to provide for the case of the death of any candidate for President or Vice President before the day on which the President-elect or Vice President-elect has been chosen, and for the case of a tie in any election.” This provided a legislative safety net for contingencies, ensuring that mechanisms would be in place to handle such eventualities.
Section 6. This section outlined the effective date of the amendment. It specified that “This article shall apply with respect to any election for President and Vice President held after the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on the date of the ratification of this article.” This clause provided a transition period, ensuring that the new system would not take immediate effect, allowing for orderly implementation.
Background
The detailed provisions of the proposed amendment warrant further examination.
Sections 1, 3, and 4: These sections collectively defined the core of the direct election process. Section 1, as noted, shifted the election locus to the popular vote. Section 3, by endorsing a plurality system, simplified the win condition: the candidate or ticket with the most votes wins, eliminating the need for runoffs in cases where no candidate secures an absolute majority. Section 4 reinforced the integrity of the ticket by requiring explicit consent for joint candidacies and limiting the scope of such consent, thereby preventing undue proliferation of candidate pairings.
Section 2: This section offered a nuanced approach to voter qualifications. It proposed a three-tiered framework. The first tier involved retaining the existing qualifications for electors, which are themselves derived from the requirements for electing Senators and Representatives. These foundational qualifications are further elaborated and modified by various constitutional amendments, including the 17th Amendment , and more broadly by the 14th , 15th , 19th , 24th , and 26th Amendments . The second tier introduced a degree of state flexibility regarding residency requirements, potentially reducing waiting periods for new residents. The third tier granted Congress the authority to establish uniform age requirements for voting, which could, in effect, supersede or modify the age set forth in the 26th Amendment , allowing for potentially higher or lower age limits. This section reflects a complex balance between federal oversight and state autonomy in defining the electorate.
Section 5: This section significantly expanded the role of Congress in the electoral process, particularly in managing contingencies. By empowering Congress to legislate on matters such as candidate death before election day or electoral ties, it granted the legislative branch considerable authority to shape the practical application of the amendment, ensuring a degree of predictability and stability in the election system.
Section 6: This clause provided a practical timeline for implementation, ensuring that the amendment would come into effect for the next presidential election cycle, provided it was ratified at least one year prior. This buffer period was crucial for allowing the necessary adjustments to be made across federal and state election systems.
Boxer and Cohen Proposals (2016)
In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, which again highlighted the divergence between the national popular vote and the Electoral College outcome, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, alongside Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, put forth new proposals to abolish the Electoral College. On November 15, 2016, Senator Boxer introduced a resolution aimed at amending the US Constitution to establish a direct popular election of the President and Vice President. This resolution envisioned the election being decided by the voters across all states and the District of Columbia. A companion resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Cohen on January 5, 2017. A key distinction between Cohen’s proposal and the earlier Bayh–Celler amendment was the threshold for victory. While the Bayh–Celler amendment had included a 40% threshold, Cohen’s proposal simply required a candidate to achieve the “greatest number of votes "—that is, a plurality—to win the presidency. This simplification aimed to streamline the path to victory and ensure that the winner was unequivocally the choice of the largest bloc of voters.
Schatz, Durbin and Welch Proposed Amendment (2024)
More recently, on December 16, 2024, a new push to reform the Electoral College emerged from the Senate. Democratic Senators Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Peter Welch of Vermont jointly proposed a constitutional amendment with the explicit aim of abolishing the Electoral College. This initiative signifies a continued, albeit often stalled, effort to align the presidential election process with a direct popular vote mandate, reflecting ongoing concerns about the fairness and representativeness of the current system.