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...
Saved in:
Published in | Political science quarterly Vol. 119; no. 1; pp. 21 - 37 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Oxford, UK
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.04.2004
Academy of Political Science John Wiley & Sons, Inc Oxford University Press |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
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 |