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

December. Most states’ electors meet in their state capitals and usually convene in their state houses. Alaska is worth singling out because its college “takes the show on the road.” Recent assemblages have met at a Juneau Convention Center (2008), at an Anchorage museum (2004), at an Anchorage public library (2000), and even in a Juneau junior high school classroom (1996).

These ceremonies are replete with political pageantry whereby public officials comment upon the importance of the democratic process and the wisdom of the country’s forefathers. Once electors have cast their ballots and signed the certificates of vote, their duties are completed. Electoral votes are then tabulated in a joint session of Congress on January 6, during which any disputed electoral votes are to be resolved. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 empowers Congress to reject those votes that are not considered “regularly given.”

It is worth noting that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 came about because of the disputed election of 1876. The law shifted to the states the authority to certify which presidential candidate should be awarded each state’s votes. Yet controversy among scholars and practitioners persists as to what would happen if the House and Senate could not agree on how votes were to be tabulated. The Electoral Vote Act of 1887 illustrates a case of action taken after a flaw in the system had been exposed. But the fact remained that the flaw was already in place.

In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton proclaimed that if the manner of selecting the president “be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” Clearly, Hamilton was proud of his handiwork. Despite Hamilton’s exultation, however, the Electoral College has not received similar praise from citizens—a fact presaged by James Wilson’s observation in 1787. Speaking about proposed methods of presidential selection during the Constitutional Convention, he stated, “This subject has greatly divided the House, and will also divide the people out of doors. It is in truth the most difficult of all on which we have had to decide” (Dahl 2001, 73–74). In spite of the framer’s admiration for the process, debate has always enveloped the institution. Public opinion polls have consistently held the institution in low esteem, and from its inception it has remained one of the most