Fwd: Re: Electoral College and Bound Votes

["Sandra K. Peterson" <sandra.k.peterson@YALE.EDU>]

Just in case the question is asked.

Sandy Peterson

>Subject:      Re: Electoral College and Bound Votes
>To: GOVDOC-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU

 I have a question involving the Electoral College, which for some reason
>> (?) seems to be very much in the news these days. Anyway, the question is
>> in regards to those electors who are "bound"  ones, those who are
>required
>> by various states to vote strictly for the one presidential candidate who
>> has taken the majority vote in those respective states. The question is:
>> just which states have "bound" electors. The FEC web site reveals that
>> there are "at least 24" states (plus D.C) which have bound electors, but
>> does not list those actual states. Other web-sites consulted on the
>> Electoral College failed to reveal this information either A monograph
>> After the People Votes gives such a list in its appendix, but this book
>> was published in 1992 and doesn't appear to have been updated since then.
>> Any ideas?
>
>Here's some info that might address your question...
>
>From:  http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/faq.html#take%20all
>
>"What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional
>voting, and which States follow which rule?
>There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral
>College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the
>vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more
>than any other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes.
>
>Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all
>rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among
>candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes.
>For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional
>districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two
>by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win
>the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the
>second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who
>finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the
>two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has
>not actually occurred in recent elections."
>
>Here are a few quotes from CQ's "Elections A to Z" that are interesting as
>well...
>
>"Under the Constitution, electors are free to vote as they please, but
>electors who do so are rare and are known as faithless electors.  Some
>states prohibit faithless voting, but the constitutionality of such laws
>has not been tested." pg.139
>
>"In 1887 Congress passed permanent legislation for the handling of disputed
>electoral votes.  The 1887 law, still in force, authorized each state to
>determine the legality of the choice of electors.  Majorities of both the
>House and Senate are needed to reject any disputed electoral votes."
>pg.140
>
>Steve  :)
>
>--
>Stephen H. Spohn, Jr.
>Government Documents & Maps * University of Maryland Libraries
>2117 McKeldin Library * College Park MD 20742-7011
>sspohnjr@wam.umd.edu * 301-314-1356 * 301-314-7111 FAX


Sandra K. Peterson,
Government Information Librarian;
Coordinator of Social Science Reference;
Librarian for Political Science and Policy Studies;
Yale University Libraries
Box 208294; 38 Mansfield Street
New Haven, CT 06520
(203) 432-3212; Fax: (203) 432-3214
Email:  Sandra.K.Peterson@yale.edu