Presidential Selection: Electoral Fallacies

Serious discussion of the so-called electoral college was one minor casualty of the thirty-six days of legal and political maneuvering accompanying the Florida recount that ultimately decided the presidential election of 2000. The realization that the runner-up in the national popular vote could wel...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPolitical science quarterly Vol. 119; no. 1; pp. 21 - 37
Main Author RAKOVE, JACK N.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2004
Academy of Political Science
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Oxford University Press
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Serious discussion of the so-called electoral college was one minor casualty of the thirty-six days of legal and political maneuvering accompanying the Florida recount that ultimately decided the presidential election of 2000. The realization that the runner-up in the national popular vote could well inherit the White House sparked a modicum of interest in the workings of the electoral college. Here, Rakove explains how the electoral system was first devised and discusses some subconstitutional remedies for the perceived inequities of the electoral system.
Bibliography:istex:CA8CC7BED3CD4B9314A11A975BC0C04B2548809E
ark:/67375/WNG-W24NQ36P-W
ArticleID:POLQ413
On 27 September 2002, there took place in the Iphigene Sulzberger Tower Suite at Barnard College a symposium on various aspects of the question: "Should Americans Have the Constitutional Right to Vote for Presidential Electors?" The symposium was sponsored by the Academy of Political Science and the Barnard College Department of Political Science and was funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The question addressed was provoked by the part of the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore which asserted that there is no constitutional right to vote for president, so voting directly for presidential electors can be given and taken away by state legislators even after a popular vote. In our Summer 2003 issue, we published one of the papers and a transcript of the ensuing panel discussion. In this issue, we publish two more of the papers prepared for that symposium.
JACK N. RAKOVE is the Coe Professor of History and American Studies, and professor of political science, at Stanford University. He is the author of
which asserted that there is no constitutional right to vote for president, so voting directly for presidential electors can be given and taken away by state legislators even after a popular vote. In our Summer 2003 issue, we published one of the papers and a transcript of the ensuing panel discussion. In this issue, we publish two more of the papers prepared for that symposium.
On 27 September 2002, there took place in the Iphigene Sulzberger Tower Suite at Barnard College a symposium on various aspects of the question: “Should Americans Have the Constitutional Right to Vote for Presidential Electors?” The symposium was sponsored by the Academy of Political Science and the Barnard College Department of Political Science and was funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The question addressed was provoked by the part of the Supreme Court decision in
Bush v. Gore
Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution
and numerous essays on the historical roots of contemporary constitutional disputes.
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0032-3195
1538-165X
DOI:10.2307/20202303