The
Electoral College consists of the popularly
elected representatives (electors) who formally elect the
President and
Vice President of the United
States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each
presidential election.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies
how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each
state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen;
U.S. territories
are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College
is an example of an
indirect
election.
Rather
than directly voting for the President and Vice President, United States
citizens vote for
electors. Electors are technically free to vote for anyone
eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for
specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored
presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for
correspondingly pledged electors.
The
Twelfth
Amendment provides for each elector to cast one vote for
President and one vote for Vice President. It also specifies how a
President and Vice President are elected.
Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and
gives certain
swing states
disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice
President. Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an
important and distinguishing feature of
federalism in the United States and protects the
rights of smaller states. Numerous
constitutional
amendments have been introduced in the Congress seeking a
replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote;
however, no proposal has ever passed the Congress.
Background
At the
Constitutional
Convention, the delegates used the
Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as
the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan
called for the Executive to be elected by the Legislature.
Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of
election. However, the Committee of Eleven, formed to work out
various details including the mode of election of the President,
recommended instead that the election be by a group of people
apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their
representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been
resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the
Connecticut Compromise and
Three-fifths compromise), but chosen
by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct."
Committee member
Gouverneur Morris
explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were
fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of
men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the
independence of the President if he was elected by the Congress.
Though some delegates preferred popular election, the Convention
approved the Committee's proposal, with minor modifications, on
September 6, 1787.
Origin of name
Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" or
"electors", the name "Electoral College" — or any other name — is
never used to describe the collective vote of the electors. It was
not until the early 1800s that the name "Electoral College" came
into general usage as the collective designation for the electors
selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was
first written into federal law in 1845 and today the term appears
in , in the section heading and in the text as "college of
electors."
Original plan
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided for
the original fashion by which the President and Vice President were
to be chosen by the electors. Unlike the present system, each
elector voted for two people for President, rather than one vote
for President and one vote for Vice President. To become President,
a candidate had to have more votes than any other and must have
received votes from a majority of the electors. After the choosing
of the President, the person with the most electoral votes among
the remaining candidates would become the Vice President. If no one
received a majority of the votes, the decision would be made by the
House of Representatives.
The design of the Electoral College was based upon several
assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:
- Each state would employ the district system of allocating
electors.
- Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment
when voting.
- Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with
assumed placements toward each office of President and Vice
President.
- The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus
sending the election to Congress.
On these facts, scholars have described the intended role of the
Electoral College as simply a body that would nominate candidates
from which the Congress would then select a President and Vice
President.
Under the original plan for the Electoral College, each state
government was free to have its own plan for selecting its
electors. Several different methods emerged and are described at
length
below.
Breakdown and revision
The emergence of
political parties
and nationally coordinated election campaigns soon complicated
matters in the elections of
1796 and
1800. In 1796, the
winner of the election was
John Adams, a
member of the
Federalist Party. The
runner up, and therefore the new Vice President, was
Thomas Jefferson of the opposition
Democratic-Republican
Party.
In 1800, the candidates of the Democratic-Republican Party
(Jefferson for President and
Aaron Burr
for Vice President) each tied for first place. However, since all
electoral votes were for President, Burr's votes were technically
for him being President even though he was his party's second
choice. Jefferson was so hated by Federalists that the party
members sitting in the
lame
duck Congress tried to elect Burr. The Congress deadlocked for
35 ballots as neither candidate received the necessary majority
vote of the state delegations in the House (the votes of nine
states were needed for an election). Only after Federalist Party
leader
Alexander Hamilton—who
disliked Burr much more than Jefferson—made known his preference
for Jefferson was the issue resolved on the 36th ballot.
In response to those elections, the Congress proposed the
Twelfth
Amendment—with electors casting one vote for President and one
vote for Vice President—to replace the system outlined in Article
II, Section 1, Clause 3. The Twelfth Amendment was proposed in 1803
and was adopted in 1804.
Modern Electoral College mechanics
The constitutional theory behind the
indirect election of both the President
and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress
is popularly elected by the people, the President and Vice
President are elected to be executives of a federation of
independent states.
In the
Federalist No. 39,
James
Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a
mixture of
state-based and
population-based government. The
Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the
population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the President
would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.
Additionally, in the
Federalist
No. 10, James Madison argued
against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs
of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a
number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of
the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of
passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens,
or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
Republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct
democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and
powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further
postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population
and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would
face in organizing due to such issues as
sectionalism.
Summary
Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as
determined by the laws of each state. Each state currently uses its
statewide popular vote on
Election Day to appoint
electors.
Although ballots list the names of the
presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington,
D.C.
actually choose electors for their state when they
vote for President and Vice President. These presidential
electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Even
though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state
officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not
the basis for electing a President or Vice President.
A candidate must receive an
absolute
majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the
Presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for
President, or Vice President, that election is determined via a
contingency procedure in the
Twelfth
Amendment, which is explained in detail
below.
Apportionment of electors
The size
of the Electoral College is equal to the total membership of both
Houses of Congress (435 Representatives and 100 Senators) plus the
three electors allocated to Washington, D.C., totaling 538 electors.
Each state is allocated as many electors as it has Representatives
and Senators in the
United States
Congress. Since the most populous states have the most seats in
the House of Representatives, they also have the most electors.
The six
states with the most electors are California
(55), Texas
(34),
New
York
(31), Florida
(27),
Illinois
(21) and
Pennsylvania
(21). The seven smallest states by
population—Alaska
, Delaware
, Montana
, North Dakota
, South
Dakota
, Vermont
, and
Wyoming
—have three
electors each. The number of Representatives for each state
is determined
decennially by the
United States Census, thus
determining the number of electoral votes for each state until the
next Census reallocation.
Under the
Twenty-third
Amendment, Washington, D.C. is allocated as many electors as it
would have if it were a state, but no more electors than the least
populous state.
The least populous state (Wyoming) has three
electors; thus, D.C. cannot have more than three electors.
Even if D.C. were a state, its current population would entitle it
to three electors; based on its population per electoral vote, D.C.
has the second highest per-capita Electoral College representation,
after Wyoming.
Nomination of electors
Candidates for elector are nominated by their state political
parties in the months prior to
Election Day. The Constitution
delegates to each state the authority for nominating and choosing
its electors. In some states, the electors are nominated in
primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated.
Other
states, such as Oklahoma
, Virginia
, and North Carolina
nominate electors in party conventions.
In
Pennsylvania, the campaign committees of each candidate name
their candidates for presidential elector (an attempt to discourage
faithless electors).
Disqualification of electors
Under
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States
Constitution, no person holding a federal office, either
elected or appointed, may become an elector. Under
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any person who has sworn
an
oath to support the United States
Constitution in order to hold either a state or federal office, and
has then later rebelled against the United States, is barred from
serving in the Electoral College. However, the Congress may remove
this disability by a two-thirds vote in each House.
Election Day
Federal law sets the Tuesday following the first Monday in November
as the day for holding federal elections.
Each state's legislature determines how its electors are to be
chosen. Currently, all states choose electors by popular election
on the date specified by federal law. Forty eight states, and
Washington, D.C., employ the winner-takes-all method, each awarding
its electors as a single bloc.
Two states, Maine
and Nebraska
, select one elector within each congressional
district by popular vote, and additionally select the remaining two
electors by the aggregate, statewide popular vote. This
method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since
1992.
The current system of choosing electors is called the "short
ballot." In all states, voters choose among slates of candidates
for the associated elector; only a few states list the names of the
electors on the ballot. In some states, if a voter wishes to write
in a candidate for President, the voter also is required to
write-in the names of candidates for elector.
Meetings of electors
Certificate for the electoral vote for
Rutherford B.
Wheeler for the State of Louisiana
Electors chosen on Election Day meet in their respective state
capitals (or in the case of Washington, D.C., within the District)
on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time
they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President
and Vice President.
The Electoral College never meets as one body. Although procedures
in each state vary slightly, the electors generally follow a
similar series of steps, and the Congress has constitutional
authority to regulate the procedures the states follow. The meeting
is opened by the election certification official—often each state's
Secretary of State or equivalent—who reads the Certificate of
Ascertainment. This document sets forth who was chosen to cast the
electoral votes. Those present answer to their name, and they then
fill any vacancies in their number. The next step is the selection
of a president or chairman of the meeting, sometimes also with a
vice chairman. The electors sometimes choose a secretary, often not
himself an elector, to take the minutes of the meeting. In many
states, political officials give short speeches at this point in
the proceedings.
When the time for balloting arrives, the electors choose one or two
people to act as tellers. Some states provide for the placing in
nomination of a candidate to receive the electoral votes (the
candidate for President of the political party of the electors).
Each elector submits a written ballot with the name of a candidate
for President.
In New Jersey
, the electors cast ballots by checking the name of
the candidate on a pre-printed card; in North Carolina, the electors write the name of the candidate on a
blank card. The tellers count the ballots and announce the
result. The next step is the casting of the vote for Vice
President, which follows a similar pattern.
After the voting is complete, the electors complete the Certificate
of Vote. This document states the number of electoral votes cast
for President and Vice President and who received those votes. The
state election official usually has pre-printed forms ready and the
tellers usually only write down the number of votes cast for
appropriate candidates. Five copies of the Certificate of Vote are
completed and signed by each elector. Multiple copies of the
Certificate of Vote are signed, in order to provide multiple
originals in case one is lost. One copy is sent to the President of
the U.S. Senate (the sitting Vice President of the United States)
by certified mail.
A staff member of the Vice President collects the Certificates of
Vote as they arrive and prepares them for the joint session of the
Congress. The Certificates are arranged—unopened—in alphabetical
order and placed in two special mahogany boxes.
Alabama
through Missouri
(including Washington, D.C.) are placed in one box and Montana through Wyoming are placed in the other box.
Faithless electors
A
faithless elector is one who
casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have
pledged to elect, or who refuses to vote for any candidate. There
are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states.
In 1952, the
constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before
the Supreme Court
in Ray
v. Blair, .
The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge
to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who
refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a
functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore,
states have the right to govern electors.
The constitutionality
of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless
vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the
Supreme Court. While many states may only punish a
faithless elector after-the-fact, some such as Michigan
specify that his or her vote shall be
cancelled.
As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or
the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high
loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a
greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.
Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential
election to date.
For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett
Simmons of Washington,
D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore
as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest
against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting
representation. That elector's
abstention
did not change who won that year's presidential election, as
George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the
electoral votes.
Joint session of Congress and the contingent election
The
Twelfth
Amendment mandates that the Congress assemble in joint session
to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the
election. The session is ordinarily required to take place on
January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings
of the presidential electors; however, for 2009 only, the law calls
for it to take place on January 8.
The meeting is held at 1:00 p.m. in the Chamber of the U.S. House
of Representatives. The sitting Vice President is expected to
preside, but in several cases the
President
pro tempore of the Senate has chaired the proceedings
instead. The Vice President and the
Speaker of
the House sit at the podium, with the Vice President in the
seat of the Speaker of the House. Senate pages bring in the two
mahogany boxes containing each state's certified vote and place
them on tables in front of the Senators and Representatives. Each
house appoints two tellers to count the vote. Relevant portions of
the Certificate of Vote are read for each state, in alphabetical
order. Members of Congress can object to any state's vote count,
provided that the objection is supported by at least one member of
each house of Congress. A successful objection will be followed by
debate; however, objections to the electoral vote count are rarely
raised, although it did occur during the vote count in 2001 after
the remarkably close Presidential Election in 2000 between Governor
George W. Bush of Texas and the Vice President of the United
States, Al Gore. Vice President Gore, who ironically as Vice
President was required to preside over his own Electoral College
defeat (by only a few electoral votes), denied the objections, all
of which would have favored his candidacy. If there are no
objections, the presiding officer declares the result of the vote
and, if applicable, states who is elected President and Vice
President. The Senators then depart from the House Chamber.
Contingent presidential election by House
Pursuant to the
Twelfth
Amendment, the
House of
Representatives is required to go into session immediately to
vote for President if no candidate for President receives a
majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538
electoral votes).
In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing
from among the three candidates who received the most electoral
votes. Each state delegation votes
en bloc - its members
have a single vote collectively (and the District of Columbia does
not receive a vote). A candidate must receive an absolute majority
of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that
candidate to become the
President-elect. Additionally,
delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be
present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting
until it elects a President.
The House of Representatives has chosen the President only twice:
once under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (in
1801) and once
under the Twelfth Amendment (in
1825).
Contingent vice presidential election by Senate
If no candidate for Vice President receives an absolute majority of
electoral votes, then the
Senate must go into session to elect a
Vice President. The Senate is limited to choosing from only the top
two candidates to have received electoral votes (one fewer than the
number to which the House is limited). The Senate votes in the
normal manner in this case (i.e., ballots are individually cast by
each Senator, not by state delegations). However, two-thirds of the
Senators must be present for voting to take place.
Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that a "majority of the
whole number" of Senators (currently 51 of 100) is necessary for
election. Further, the language requiring an absolute majority of
Senate votes precludes the sitting Vice President from breaking any
tie which might occur, although this is disputed by some legal
scholars.
The only time the Senate chose the Vice President was in
1837. In that
instance, the Senate adopted an alphabetical
roll call and voting aloud. The rules further
stated, "[I]f a majority of the number of Senators shall vote for
either the said Richard M. Johnson or Francis Granger, he shall be
declared by the presiding officer of the Senate constitutionally
elected Vice President of the United States..." (Johnson won)
Deadlocked chambers
If the House of Representatives has not chosen a
President-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on
January 20), then Section 3 of the
Twentieth
Amendment specifies that the
Vice President-elect
becomes
Acting
President until the House should select a President. If the
winner of the vice presidential election is also not known by then,
then under the
Presidential Succession
Act of 1947, the sitting
Speaker of
the House would become Acting President until either the House
should select a President or the Senate should select a Vice
President. None of these situations has ever occurred.
Alternative methods of choosing electors
Methods of Presidential Elector selection, by state,
1789-1832
| Year |
|
AL |
CT |
DE |
GA |
IL |
|
IN |
KY |
LA |
ME |
MD |
|
MA |
MS |
MO |
NH |
NJ |
|
NY |
NC |
OH |
PA |
RI |
|
SC |
TN |
VT |
VA |
| 1789 |
|
- |
L |
D |
L |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
A |
|
H |
- |
- |
H |
L |
|
- |
- |
- |
A |
- |
|
L |
- |
- |
D |
| 1792 |
|
- |
L |
L |
L |
- |
|
- |
D |
- |
- |
A |
|
H |
- |
- |
H |
L |
|
L |
L |
- |
A |
L |
|
L |
- |
L |
D |
| 1796 |
|
- |
L |
L |
A |
- |
|
- |
D |
- |
- |
D |
|
H |
- |
- |
H |
L |
|
L |
D |
- |
A |
L |
|
L |
H |
L |
D |
| 1800 |
|
- |
L |
L |
L |
- |
|
- |
D |
- |
- |
D |
|
L |
- |
- |
L |
L |
|
L |
D |
- |
L |
A |
|
L |
H |
L |
A |
| 1804 |
|
- |
L |
L |
L |
- |
|
- |
D |
- |
- |
D |
|
D |
- |
- |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
A |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
L |
A |
| 1808 |
|
- |
L |
L |
L |
- |
|
- |
D |
- |
- |
D |
|
L |
- |
- |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
A |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
L |
A |
| 1812 |
|
- |
L |
L |
L |
- |
|
- |
D |
L |
- |
D |
|
D |
- |
- |
A |
L |
|
L |
L |
A |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
L |
A |
| 1816 |
|
- |
L |
L |
L |
- |
|
L |
D |
L |
- |
D |
|
L |
- |
- |
A |
A |
|
L |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
L |
A |
| 1820 |
|
L |
A |
L |
L |
D |
|
L |
D |
L |
D |
D |
|
D |
A |
L |
A |
A |
|
L |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
L |
A |
| 1824 |
|
A |
A |
L |
L |
D |
|
A |
D |
L |
D |
D |
|
A |
A |
D |
A |
A |
|
L |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
L |
A |
| 1828 |
|
A |
A |
L |
A |
A |
|
A |
A |
A |
D |
D |
|
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
D |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
L |
D |
A |
A |
| 1832 |
|
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
A |
A |
A |
A |
D |
|
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
A |
A |
A |
A |
A |
|
L |
A |
A |
A |
| Year |
|
AL |
CT |
DE |
GA |
IL |
|
IN |
KY |
LA |
ME |
MD |
|
MA |
MS |
MO |
NH |
NJ |
|
NY |
NC |
OH |
PA |
RI |
|
SC |
TN |
VT |
VA |
| Key |
A |
Popular vote, At-large |
D |
Popular vote, Districting |
L |
Legislative selection |
H |
Hybrid system |
Before the advent of the short ballot in the early twentieth
century, as described above, the most common means of electing the
presidential electors was through the
general ticket. The
general ticket is quite similar to the current system and is often
confused with it. In the general ticket, voters cast ballots for
individuals running for presidential elector (while in the short
ballot, voters cast ballots for an entire slate of electors). In
the general ticket, the state canvass would report the number of
votes cast for each candidate for elector, a complicated process in
states like New York with multiple positions to fill. Both the
general ticket and the short ballot are often considered at-large
or winner-takes-all voting.
The short ballot was adopted by the various
states at different times; it was adopted for use by North
Carolina and Ohio in
1932. Alabama was still using the general ticket as late as 1960
and was one of the last states to switch to the short
ballot.
The question of the extent to which state constitutions may
constrain the legislature's choice of a method of choosing electors
has been touched on in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In
McPherson v. Blacker, , the Court cited Article
II, Section 1, Clause 2 which states that a state's electors are
selected "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" and
wrote that these words "operat[e] as a limitation upon the state in
respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power." In
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, , a
Florida Supreme Court decision was vacated (not reversed) based on
McPherson. On the other hand, three dissenting justices in
Bush v. Gore, , wrote: "nothing in Article II of
the Federal Constitution frees the state legislature from the
constraints in the State Constitution that created it."
Appointment by state legislature
An early method of choosing electors was selection by the state
legislature. A majority of the states legislatively selected
presidential electors in both 1792 and 1800, and half of the states
did so in 1812. One reason most U.S. history textbooks don't start
reporting the national aggregate popular vote until the election of
1824 is because more than a quarter of all the states used
legislative choice in all prior elections; there simply was no
popular vote for President in those states. Even
in 1824, when
Andrew Jackson lost in spite of
having pluralities of both the popular and electoral votes, a full
quarter of the states (6 of 24) did not hold popular elections for
President and Vice President; instead, those six state legislatures
choose the electors that year.
By 1828, only Delaware and South Carolina continued to use legislative choice.
Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832), while
South Carolina held on to legislative choice until it became the
first state to secede in December 1860.
Legislative appointment made four more appearances on the electoral
stage:
- In
1848, Massachusetts statute awarded the state's electoral votes to the
winner of the at-large popular vote, but only if that candidate won
an absolute majority. When the vote produced no winner
between the Democratic, Free Soil, and Whig parties, the state
legislature selected the electors, giving all 12 electoral votes to
the Whigs.
- In
1864, Nevada
, having
joined the Union only a few days prior to Election Day, had no
choice but to appoint.
- In
1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida appointed
its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold
elections.
- Finally, in 1876, the legislature of the
newly admitted state of Colorado
used legislative choice due to a lack of time and
money to hold an election.
Legislative appointment was also brandished as a possibility in the
2000
election. Had the recount continued, the Florida legislature
was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid
missing the federal deadline for choosing electors.
The Constitution gives the power to the state legislatures to
decide how electors are chosen and it is easier and cheaper for a
state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to
create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine
the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which
legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been
because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an
election. However, appointment by state legislature can result
negatively: legislatures can deadlock more easily than the
electorate. In fact, this is precisely what happened to New York in
1789 when the legislature failed to appoint any electors.
Electoral districts
Another method used early in U.S. history was to divide the state
into electoral districts. By this method, voters in each district
would cast their ballots for the candidate they supported and the
winner in each district would receive that electoral vote. This was
similar to how states are currently separated by congressional
districts. However, the difference stems from the fact that every
state always had two more electoral districts than congressional
districts; as such, the electoral districts could not mirror the
layout of the state's congressional districts. As with
congressional districts, moreover, this method is vulnerable to
gerrymandering.
All states had discarded this method of elector selection after
1832.
However, this method reappeared in Michigan for the 1892 election. Before the election,
the Democratic Party had gained control of Michigan's state
legislature and changed the method used from at-large popular
voting to electoral district voting in order to capture at least a
portion of the state's electoral votes (at the time, Michigan
tended to vote Republican). The plan worked, and Michigan split its
vote: nine votes for Republican
Benjamin Harrison and five votes for
Democrat
Grover Cleveland. Once the
Republican party regained control of the state legislature, the
method of elector selection was switched back to at-large popular
voting.
Congressional District Method
The
Congressional District Method (a.k.a.,
Maine-Nebraska Method) is an alternative way of distributing
electoral votes within a state. In a winner-takes-all system, the
winner of the statewide popular vote receives all of that state’s
electoral votes. Under the Congressional District Method, the
electoral votes are distributed based on the popular vote winner
within each of the state’s individual congressional districts;
additionally, the statewide popular vote winner receiving two
additional electoral votes.
The number of electoral votes allocated to each state is equal to
the number of representatives the state has in the Congress. The
two statewide-winner electoral votes are held to be equivalent to
the two votes each state receives in the U.S. Senate. The
districtwide-winner electoral votes are equivalent to that
district's vote in the House of Representatives.
Currently, only Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional District Method for
distributing their electoral votes. Maine has four electoral
votes based on its two Representatives and two Senators. In
Nebraska there are two Senators and three Representatives, giving
it five electoral votes. Maine began its use of the Congressional
District Method in the
election of 1972.
Nebraska has used the Congressional District Method since the
election of
1992. A recent call has been made by Nebraska Republicans to
discard the Congressional District Method and return to the
winner-takes-all system. Such previous calls for reform failed in
the late 1990s.
The Congressional District Method allows for the chance for states
to split their electoral vote between multiple candidates. Before
2008, neither Maine nor Nebraska had ever split their electoral
votes. Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time in
2008, giving John McCain its statewide electors and those of two
congressional districts, while Barack Obama won the electoral vote
of
Nebraska's 2nd
congressional district.
The Congressional District Method more closely reflects the
one man, one vote principle than
the current winner-takes-all system because an individual's vote
has a larger weight to it. In addition, the Congressional District
Method can be more easily implemented than other alternatives to
the winner-takes-all method. Each state need only pass legislation
in order to use this method, instead of having to pass a
constitutional amendment like some other Electoral College reform
options. However, the Congressional District Method has its
downsides. For instance, candidates might only spend time in
certain battleground districts instead of the entire state, and
cases of
gerrymandering could become
exacerbated as political parties attempt to draw as many safe
districts as they can.
Proportional vote
Under such a system, electors would be selected in proportion to
the votes cast for their candidate or party, rather than being
selected by the statewide plurality vote.
Contemporary conflict over the Electoral College
Arguments between proponents and opponents of the current electoral
system include four separate but related topics: indirect election,
disproportionate voting power by some states, the winner-takes-all
distribution method (as chosen by 48 of the 50 states), and
federalism. Arguments against the Electoral College in common
discussion mostly focus on the allocation of the voting power among
the states.
Arguments against the Electoral College
This graphic demonstrates how the winner of the popular vote can
still lose in a hypothetical electoral college system.
Population per Elector allocated to
each of the 50 states and DC, ranked by population.
For instance, 1=California, 2=Texas, 50=DC and
51=Wyoming.
Population per U.S.
Representative allocated to each of the 50 states and DC,
ranked by population.
Since DC (ranked 50) receives no seats in the House, its bar
is absent.
Irrelevancy of national popular vote
The elections of
1876,
1888 and
2000 produced an
Electoral College winner who did not receive the
plurality of the nationwide popular vote.
In
1824,
there were six states in which electors were legislatively
appointed rather than popularly elected, so the true national
popular vote is uncertain. When no candidate received a majority of
electoral votes in 1824, the election was decided by the
House of
Representatives and thus could be considered distinct from the
latter three elections in which all of the states had popular
selection of electors. Opponents of the Electoral College claim
that such outcomes do not logically follow the normative concept of
how a democratic system should function.
Outcomes of this sort are attributable to the federal nature of the
system. From such a configuration, argue supporters of the
Electoral College, candidates must build a popular base that is
geographically broader and more diverse in voter interests. This
feature is not a logical consequence of having intermediate
elections of Presidents but rather the
winner-takes-all method of
allocating each state's slate of electors with the exception of
Maine and Nebraska. Allocation of electors in proportion to the
state's popular vote would reduce this effect.
Scenarios exhibiting this outcome typically result when the winning
candidate has won the requisite configuration of states (and thus
their votes) by small margins while his opponent captured large
voter margins in the remaining states. Given the allocation of
electors in 2000, it is possible a candidate could win with only a
small margin of support in the 11 largest states. In such an
example, the very large margins secured by the losing candidate in
the other states would aggregate to well over 50 percent of the
ballots cast nationally. Claims that the Electoral College
suppresses the "popular will" are therefore open to debate.
A result of the present functionality of the Electoral College is
that the national popular vote bears no legal or factual
significance on determining the outcome of the election. Since the
national popular vote is irrelevant, both voters and candidates are
assumed to base their campaign strategies around the existence of
the Electoral College; any close race has candidates campaigning to
maximize electoral votes by capturing coveted swing states, not to
maximize national popular vote totals.
Focus on large swing states
Most states use a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate
with the most votes in that state receives all of the state's
electoral votes.
This gives candidates an incentive to pay
the most attention to states without a clear favorite, such as
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
Florida.
For
example, California, Texas, and
New
York, in spite of having the largest populations, have
in recent elections been considered safe for a particular party
(Democratic for
California and New
York; Republican for Texas), and
therefore candidates typically devote relatively few resources, in
both time and money, to such states.
It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and
disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take
California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27),
Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia
(15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would
have 271 votes, which would be enough to win. In the close
elections of 2000 and 2004, these eleven states gave 111 votes to
Republican candidate George W. Bush and 160 votes to Democratic
candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. In 2008, the Democratic
candidate Barack Obama won nine of these eleven states (for 222
electoral votes), with Republican
John
McCain taking a combined 49 electoral votes from Texas and
Georgia.
Proponents of the Electoral College claim that adoption of the
popular vote would simply shift the disproportionate focus to large
cities at the expense of rural areas. Candidates might also be
inclined to campaign hardest in their base areas to maximize
turnout among core supporters, and ignore more closely divided
parts of the country. Whether such developments would be good or
bad is a matter of normative political theory and political
interests of the voters in question.
Discourages turnout and participation
Except in the few closely fought swing states, it does not matter
how many people turn out to vote. The Electoral College eliminates
any advantage to a political party or campaign for encouraging
voters to turn out, except in those swing states. If the
presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in
contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to
work to increase turnout everywhere. Individuals would similarly
have a strong incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to
turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states
and non-swing states under the current electoral college system
suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election
by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation
significantly.
Allows states to disenfranchise citizens without penalty
If a state makes it harder for its citizens to vote, whether by
making voting more difficult, or by legally
disfranchising some citizens (such as
those convicted of
felonies) from voting, and turnout in the state is reduced as a
result, the Electoral College insulates the state from being
penalized. In fact, legal scholars
Akhil
Amar and
Vikram Amar point out that
the original compromise of the Electoral College was largely due to
this very fact.
Direct national election of the President
(which was proposed by a delegate from Pennsylvania) would have enabled the North to outvote the South,
because "the South would get no credit for its half-million slaves,
none of whom, of course, would be able to vote. The
electoral college system that ultimately emerged gave the South
partial—
three-fifths—credit
for its slaves." The states were thus allowed to disfranchise large
numbers of citizens while maintaining the same influence in the
Electoral College. Akhil and Vikram Amar note, "The founders'
system also encouraged the continued disfranchisement of women. In
a direct national election system, any state that gave women the
vote would automatically have doubled its national clout. Under the
Electoral College, however, a state had no such incentive to
increase the franchise; as with slaves, what mattered was how many
women lived in a state, not how many were empowered."
The Electoral College continues to insulate states from losing any
influence when they disfranchise or suppress the votes of their
citizens, whether through
voter
suppression, through making it more difficult or expensive to
vote, or through actually taking away some citizens' votes by law.
"Even today, a state with low voter turnout gets precisely the same
number of electoral votes as if it had a high turnout. By contrast,
a well-designed direct election system could spur states to get out
the vote."
Favors less populous states
As a consequence of giving more
per capita voting power to
the less populated states, the Electoral College gives
disproportionate power to those states' interests. Democrats often
assert that the Electoral College system favors the Republican
Party by disproportionately boosting the electoral weight of the
less populous states, which have tended historically to vote
Republican. In fact, on all three occasions that the electoral vote
winner and popular vote winner has been different, the Republican
party won the election. While this argument does apply to the 2000
election, it is debatable whether it helps to explain the 1876 and
1888 results, since in these cases the small states were more
evenly divided.
In one countervailing analysis, the
Banzhaf Power Index (BPI) model based on
probability theory was used to
test the hypothesis that citizens of small states accrue more
election power. It was found that in 1990, individual voters in
California, the largest state, had 3.3 times more individual power
to choose a President than voters of Montana, the largest of the
minimum 3 elector states. Banzhaf's method has been criticized for
treating votes like coin-flips, and more empirically-based models
of voting yield results which seem to favor larger states
less.
Disadvantage for third parties
In practice, the winner-take-all manner of allocating a state's
electors generally decreases the importance of minor parties.
Arguments in favor of the Electoral College
Prevents an urban-centric victory
Proponents of the Electoral College claim the Electoral College
prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning
in heavily populated
urban areas. This
means that candidates must make a much wider appeal than they would
if they simply had to win the national popular vote.
Maintains the federal character of the nation
The United States of America is a federal coalition which consists
of component states. Proponents of the current system argue that
the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at
the federal level greater than that given to a small, though
numerically-equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The
system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional
bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement
without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes
cast.
For many years early in the nation's history, up until the
Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their
electors by a vote of the
state legislature, and
proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the President
must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal
nature of the United States will give way to a single massive,
centralized government.
In his book
A More
Perfect Constitution, Professor
Larry Sabato elaborated on this advantage of
the Electoral College, arguing to "mend it, don't end it," in part
because of its usefulness in forcing candidates to pay attention to
lightly populated states and reinforcing the role of the state in
federalism.
Enhances status of minority groups
Far from decreasing the power of
minority
groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that, by
making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair,
minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a
candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide
variety of such minorities and
interest
groups.
Encourages stability through the two-party system
Many proponents of the Electoral College see its negative effect on
third parties as a good
thing. They argue that the two party system has provided stability
through its ability to change during times of rapid political and
cultural change. They believe it protects the most powerful office
in the country from control by what these proponents view as
regional minorities until they can moderate their views to win
broad, long-term support from across the entire nation.
Death, Legally Defined Disability To Execute the Office or
Legal Disqualification From Office of a candidate
The Constitution grants each state the right to appoint electors in
a manner chosen by that state. While it is common to think of the
electoral votes impersonally, as mere numbers, the Electoral
College is in fact made up of real people (usually party regulars
of the party whose candidate wins each state) with the capacity to
adapt to unusual situations. That capacity might be particularly
important if, for example, a candidate were to die or become in
some other way legally disabled or disqualified to serve as
President or Vice President. Advocates of the current system argue
that these electors could then choose a suitable replacement (who
would most likely come from the same party of the candidate who won
the election) more competently than could the general voting
public. Furthermore, the time period during which such a death or
the onset of such a legal disability or disqualification might call
for such an adaptation extends, under the Electoral College system,
from before Election Day (many states cannot change ballots at a
late stage) until the day the electors vote (the first Monday after
the second Wednesday of December). Thus, until the electors cast
their votes, it is not a federal issue, per se, but a state's
rights issue and state laws (should) regulate the situation. In
Virginia, for instance, the law clearly states that the electors
must vote for the name of the candidate whom they represent on the
ballot, and therefore these electors are not able to adapt to
unusual situations, unless they are willing to violate the law, and
suffer the penalties for so doing.
In the
election of 1872,
Democratic
candidate
Horace Greeley did in fact
die before the meeting of the Electoral College, resulting in
Democratic disarray; the electors who were to have voted for
Greeley split their votes across several candidates, including
three votes cast for the deceased Greeley. However, President
Ulysses S. Grant, the
Republican incumbent, had already won an absolute majority of
electors. Because it was the death of a losing candidate, there was
no pressure to agree on a replacement candidate. There has never
been a case of a candidate of the winning party dying.
In the
election of 1912,
after the Republicans had renominated
President Taft and
Vice President Sherman, Sherman died shortly before the
election, too late to change the names on the ballot, thus causing
Sherman to be listed posthumously. That ticket finished third
behind the Democrats (
Woodrow Wilson)
and the Progressives (
Theodore
Roosevelt), and the 8 electoral votes that Sherman would have
received were cast for
Nicholas
Murray Butler.
Isolation of election problems
Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the
impact of any election fraud, or other such problems, to the state
where it occurs. It prevents instances where a party dominant in
one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and
thereby affect the election outcome. For instance, recounts occur
only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide.
Neutralizes turnout disparities between states
There are factors that affect the turnout around the country.
Weather can vary greatly across a large nation, rain or winter
storms can impact voter participation in affected states. In
addition, when a state has another high profile contest, such as a
hotly contested Senate or gubernatorial race, turnout in that state
can be affected. Because the allocation of electoral votes is
independent of each state's turnout, the Electoral College
neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between
states.
Maintains separation of powers
The Constitution separated government into three branches that
check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage
deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework,
only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected
by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state
legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the
judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not
directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a
national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the
other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
This proposal calls for an
interstate
compact whereby individual states agree to allocate their
electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The state
legislatures of the joining states would then establish a
direct election, thereby effectively
circumventing the Electoral College, when they collectively have a
majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. The proposal is
still 209 electoral votes short of going into effect.
The proposal centers on Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the
United States
Constitution, which gives each state legislature the authority
to determine how its state's electors are to be chosen. Many
partial versions of this plan have emerged over the years.
While each state has
plenary power to
determine how it chooses its electors, it is unclear whether
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires
the
Congress' consent before
this compact can take effect.
Five states have joined the compact.
The first was
Maryland, when Governor Martin
O'Malley signed the bill into law on April 10, 2007. New
Jersey joined on January 13, 2008, despite objections from
Republicans who criticized the bill as undermining federal
elections. Illinois passed the law on April 7, 2008.
Hawaii
joined on
May 1, when the legislature overrode a veto from Governor Linda Lingle. On April 28, 2009,
the State of Washington
joined, when Governor Christine Gregoire signed HB
1598.
The Bayh-Celler Amendment
The closest the country has ever come to abolishing the Electoral
College occurred during the
91st Congress.
The presidential
election of 1968 had ended with
Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes to
Hubert Humphrey's 191. Yet, Nixon
had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey,
equating to less than 1% of the national total.
George Wallace received the remaining 46
electoral votes with only 13.5% of the popular vote.
Representative
Emanuel Celler,
Chairman of the US House of Representative's Judiciary Committee
responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular
vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681,
an Amendment to the United States Constitution which would have
abolished the Electoral College and replaced it with a system
wherein the pair of candidates who won at least 40% of the national
popular vote would win the Presidency and Vice Presidency
respectively. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff
election would be held in which the choice of President and Vice
President would be made from the two pairs of persons who had
received the highest number of votes in the first election. The
word "pair" was defined as "two persons who shall have consented to
the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of
President and Vice President."
On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted favorably,
28–6, to approve the Amendment. Debate on the proposed Amendment
before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11,
1969 and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September
18, 1969, being approved by a vote of 339 to 70.
On September 30, 1969, President Richard Nixon gave his endorsement
for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its
version of the Amendment which had been sponsored as Senate Joint
Resolution 1, by Senator
Birch
Bayh.
In its October 8, 1969 edition, the New York Times reported that
the legislatures of 30 states were "either certain or likely to
approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election
plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate."
Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for
passage. The paper also reported that 6 other states had yet to
state a preference, 6 were leaning toward opposition and 8 were
solidly opposed.
On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report
advocating passage of the Amendment to the full Senate. The
Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6.
The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic Senators
James Eastland of Mississippi,
John Little McClellan of Arkansas and
Sam Ervin of North Carolina along with
Republican Senators
Roman Hruska of
Nebraska,
Hiram Fong of Hawaii and
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all
argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it
had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh would indicate
that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from
the 67 needed for the Amendment to pass the full Senate. He called
upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican
Senators to support the plan. However, Nixon, while not reneging on
his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal
appeals to back the legislation.
Open debate on the Amendment finally reached the Senate floor on
Tuesday, September 8, 1970, but was quickly faced with a
filibuster. The lead objectors to
the Amendment were mostly Southern Senators and conservatives from
small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued abolishing
the Electoral College would reduce their states' political
influence.
On September 17, 1970, a motion for
cloture,
which would have ended the filibuster, failed to receive the 67
votes, or two-thirds of those Senators voting, necessary to pass.
The vote was 54 to 36 in favor of the motion. A second motion for
cloture was held on September 29, 1970, this time failing 53 to 34,
or five votes short of the required two-thirds. Thereafter, the
Senate Majority Leader,
Mike
Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the Amendment aside so that
the Senate could attend to other business. However, the Amendment
was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress
officially ended on January 3, 1971.
Electoral vote distribution
The following table shows the number of electoral votes (EV) to
which each state and the District of Columbia was entitled during
the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections:
- * Washington, D.C., although not a state, is granted three
electoral votes by the Twenty-third
Amendment.
- ** Maine and Nebraska electors distributed by way of the
Congressional
District Method.
See also
Notes
- The number of electors is equal to the total membership of the
United States Congress (composed of
435 Representatives and 100 Senators) plus three electors from the
District of Columbia. See
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution and the
Twenty-third
Amendment
- Electors are not required by federal law to honor a pledge,
however in the overwhelming majority of cases they do vote for the
candidate to whom they are pledged. Additionally many states have
laws designed to ensure that electors vote for pledged candidates.
See The Green Papers
- This process has been normalized to the point that the names of
the electors appear on the ballot only in a handful of states. See
The Green Papers
- Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: May 29
- Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: June 2
- Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September
4
- Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787: September
6
- Federal Register
- Prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth
Amendment, this only meant the House of Representatives.
- The Federalist 39
- The Federalist Papers: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,
John Jay The New American Library, 1961
- The present allotment of electors by state is shown in the
Electoral vote distribution section.
- The number of electors allocated to each state is based on
Article II,
Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
- 2006 Census estimates
- A uniform national date for presidential elections was not set
until 1845, although Congress always had constitutional authority
to do so. — Kimberling, William C. (1992) The
Electoral College, p. 7
- United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1.: "Each State
shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators
and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an
Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be
appointed an Elector."
- Michigan Election Law Section 168.47
- The Green Papers
- "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the
Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and
the votes shall then be counted." Constitution of the United States: Amendments
11-27, National Archives and Records Administration
- , Counting electoral votes in Congress
- "The meeting of the Senate and House of Representatives to be
held in January 2009 pursuant to section 15 of title 3, United
States Code, to count the electoral votes for President and Vice
President cast by the electors in December 2008 shall be held on
January 8, 2009 (rather than on the date specified in the first
sentence of that section)." ( PDF) (October 15, 2008)
- U.S. Electoral College, National
Archives and Records Administration
- RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and
Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H.
Neale, January 16, 2001
- Senate Journal from 1837
- Bush v. Gore, (Justice Stevens
dissenting) (quote in second paragraph)
- Legislative Action?, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,
November 30, 2000
- http://www.fandm.edu/x6441.xml
- The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary
Presidential Elections
- President Elect - Articles - Upgrading The
College
- Methods of Choosing Presidential Electors
- "Nebraska's Vote Change." (April 7, 1991) The Washington
Post
-
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/election_reform/lib/election_reform/Electoral_College_Reform.pdf
- The Electoral College - Reform Options
- FairVote
- Electoral College Mischief, The Wall Street
Journal, September 8, 2004
- Hands Off the Electoral College by Rep.
Ron Paul, MD, December
28, 2004
- Third Parties? by Jerry Fresia, February 28,
2006
- Why the Electoral College, P. Andrew Sandlin, December 13,
2000
- http://www.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/electorl.htm
- Dropping out of the electoral college,
CNN.COM, April 10, 2007
- "Trenton: State Backs Electoral College Change", New York
Times, January 14, 2008, Page B5
- About Governor Blagojevich's signing of HB 1685.
- About veto override in Hawaii
- History of Bill
- For a more detailed account of this proposal read The
Politics of Electoral College Reform by Lawrence D. Longley
and Alan G. Braun (1972)
- 1968 Electoral College Results,
National Archives and Records Administration
- "Text of Proposed Amendment on Voting", The New York Times,
April 30, 1969, page 21
- "House Unit Votes To Drop Electors" The New York Times, April
30, 1969, page 1
- "Direct Election of President Is Gaining in the House", The New
York Times, September 12, 1969, page 12
- "House Approves Direct Election of The President," The New York
Times, September 19, 1969, page 1
- "Nixon Comes Out For Direct Vote On Presidency," The New York
Times, October 1, 1969, page 1
- "A Survey Finds 30 Legislatures Favor Direct Vote For
President," The New York Times, October 8, 1969, page 1
- "Bayh Calls for Nixon's Support As Senate Gets Electoral Plan",
The New York Times, August 15, 1970, page 11
- "Senate Refuses To Halt Debate On Direct Voting," The New York
Times, September 18, 1970, page 1
- "Senate Debating Direct Election", The New York Times,
September 9, 1970, page 10
- The Senate reduced the required vote from two-thirds to
three-fifths (i.e., 60 vote). See United States Senate website.
- "Senate Puts Off Direct Vote Plan," The New York Times,
September 30, 1970, page 1
- U.S. National Archives and Records
Administration
- Prior to the 2012 election, each state's electoral vote total
may be changed based on the results of the 2010
Census and the subsequent congressional
re-apportionment.
External links
.png/300px-2004CampaignAttention_(edit).png)
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search