How the Electoral College Works

Step-by-Step Explanation:

1. Each State Gets a Certain Number of Electors

   • Each state has a set number of electoral votes. This number is based on how many members the state has in Congress:

     • Senators: Every state has 2.

     • Representatives: The number depends on the state’s population (bigger states have more).

   • For example:

     • California (a large state) has 54 electoral votes.

     • Wyoming (a small state) has 3 electoral votes.

     • Due to the 23rd amendment, DC gets the same number of electors as the least populous state

   • In total, there are 538 electors. A candidate needs a majority—270 electoral votes—to win. 

2. Election Day: People Vote

   • When you vote for president, you’re actually voting for a group of electors pledged to that candidate. These electors make up the Electoral College.

3. "Winner-Takes-All" (in Most States)

   • In 48 states and Washington, D.C., the candidate who gets the most votes in a state wins all of that state’s electoral votes.

   • Example: If Candidate A wins 51% of the vote in Florida, they get all 30 of Florida’s electoral votes.

   • Two states (Maine and Nebraska) do it differently by splitting electoral votes based on districts and the statewide winner.

4. Electors Cast Their Votes

   • In December, the electors meet in their state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president.

5. Congress Counts the Votes

   • In January, Congress counts the electoral votes. The candidate with at least 270 votes becomes the next president.

   • In the event of a tie (269-269), the House decides the winner, with each state delegation getting 1 vote

Swing states are the states that are close to a 50-50 balance between Democrats and Republicans, meaning that with each election, they may "swing" from one party to the other.

Typically, whichever candidate can get the most swing states to vote for them comes out on top of the election. 

Something to remember: Swing states are always changing. In 2000, Florida was a (very important) swing state; now it consistently votes for the Republican candidate. Similarly, Colorado was a swing state up until 2008 but has voted for the Democrat in every election since. 

Here's a breakdown of where each state sits in relation to how close they are to being a swing state, or how "safe" they are for either party. 

You'll notice that some states seem to appear multiple times (Maine and Nebraska). This is because they are not a "winner-take-all" state, meaning that each congressional district awards their own elector, based on the results. Both Maine and Nebraska have a district that leans in a different direction than the rest of the state. On the map above those two districts do appear as swing districts, but they are not usually brought up in conversations about swing states for two reasons:

1. They are only worth one elector each, meaning they are fairly inconsequential compared to large swing states like Pennsylvania.

2. They often offset one another- the Nebraska (a safe Republican state) district often votes Democratic, and the Maine (a lean Democratic state) district often votes Republican. Thus in the list below, they are regarded as lean Democrat/Republican, rather than truly swing.

It's important to remember, though, that the number of states a candidate wins doesn't automatically determine their overall victory. Many states have lots of land, but not a lot of people. Alternatively, some states have lots of people jammed into small areas. So while winning states DOES help someone get electors via the two senate seats allocated, it does not automatically mean they have an upper hand. Compare the two maps below. 

Some people who aim to defend the Electoral College point to the map on the left and claim that the Electoral College is fairer, because it serves more of the country's will. Whereas people who wish to discredit the Electoral College point to the map on the right to showcase that much of the areas that show up as red on the first map are basically empty lands. 

Both of these arguments are somewhat disingenuous, but both can be true. 

• Land doesn't vote- people vote.

• States also vote, not just people. 

So, both maps showcase something, but neither get down to the crux of what the electoral college is all about- balancing the ideals and values of both democracy and federalism.

Both of these maps point to one thing- winning swings states is very important. In each swing state there is at least one population epicenter- and with that comes a lot of electors. 

When people criticize the electoral college, it's usually for one these reasons: 

1. Disproportionate Representation

   • States with smaller populations have disproportionately higher influence per voter compared to larger states because every state has a minimum of three electoral votes regardless of population size.

   • For example, a vote in Wyoming carries much more weight than a vote in California.

2. "Winner-Takes-All" System

   • Most states use a winner-takes-all approach, where the candidate receiving the majority of the popular vote in that state gets all its electoral votes.

   • This system can result in the disenfranchisement of voters who supported the losing candidate within their state.

3. Possibility of a Popular Vote/Electoral College Mismatch

   • A candidate can lose the nationwide popular vote but still win the presidency by securing a majority of electoral votes. This has occurred in several elections, including in 2000 and 2016.

   • Critics argue this undermines the principle of "one person, one vote."

4. Focus on Swing States

   • Candidates tend to concentrate their campaigns on a few battleground or swing states that are more competitive, often ignoring states that are solidly "red" or "blue."

   • This means the concerns of voters in swing states often take precedence over those in other parts of the country.

5. Potential for "Faithless Electors"

   • While rare, there is the possibility that an elector may vote contrary to the pledged candidate of their state, raising concerns about accountability and the integrity of the system.

6. Barrier to Third Parties

   • The Electoral College makes it difficult for third-party or independent candidates to gain traction, as winning a plurality in a state is typically required to receive electoral votes.

   • This reinforces the two-party system.

7. Complexity and Lack of Transparency

   • The system is seen as overly complicated and not well understood by many voters, potentially reducing trust in the electoral process.

8. Historical Roots in Slavery

   • Some critics point out that the Electoral College was partially designed to balance power between Northern and Southern states by including enslaved populations (via the Three-Fifths Compromise) in population counts for determining electoral votes, which they argue taints its origins.

9. Inflexibility in Modern Times

   • The system was designed for a different era, and critics argue it does not align well with modern democratic ideals and population distributions.

These criticisms sound reasonable, but there is more to this conversation that needs to be had. 

Go to The Arguments page to learn about the Electoral College's defense to these criticisms.