Presidential Electors and the Electoral College: An Examination ...

(I discuss this in further detail in the following chapter.) Nonetheless, taking action after the fact is no substitute for the havoc such behavior causes. Speaking about maintaining faithful electors, Robert Bennett noted that the subject is “treated by both the Congress and many states with surprising casualness” (2006, 97). He rightfully argued that “the problem of faithless electors is deserving of the most careful attention, for the possibilities for mischief growing out of elector faithlessness are quite real” (Bennett 2006, 98). The following chapters forcefully illustrate the real potential for chaos posed by presidential electors.

Election 2000: Renewed Interest in the Institution

The 2000 election marked the fourth time in American history that a candidate was elected president without having won the popular vote. This electoral oddity drew a wealth of national attention to the Electoral College, a system as controversial as it is unique (see, for example, Edwards 2004). The Florida debacle of 2000 generated renewed debate regarding the Electoral College process. Fairly or unfairly, Florida represented larger concerns with the way Americans select their chief executive. That determining the winner of the popular vote and of the electoral vote hinged upon the Florida recounts focused attention on the Electoral College process. Indeed, recent presidential elections have proved quite close both in popular-vote totals and electoral-vote totals. The 2004 election marked the first campaign since the 1988 election in which the winner could claim a majority of popular votes. Even so, a single state determined the outcome of that presidential election, as well. Such close contests have brought greater attention to the office of presidential elector. Electors’ commitment to their parties becomes increasingly significant in close electoral contests. As Longley and Peirce noted, “should an electoral tally be close or unresolved, the parties and campaigns must be confident of the absolute loyalty of their electors. Mavericks and independent thinkers need not apply” (1999, 86).

A spate of research following the 2000 election analyzed the complicated features of the institution. A great deal of debate emerged focusing