Treatment of the electoral college in American government and presidency textbooks

ABSTRACT

Interest in the electoral college was renewed after the controversial presidential election of 2000. A number of scholars have debated the merits of the Framer's creative invention for deciding presidential elections and the 2000 election controversy has received its fair share of attention, but it became clear that the nation including the media and "expert" political pundits needed a civics lesson on the workings of the electoral college. As part of a larger examination of how much Americans know about how the country elects a president, this article explores the manner in which leading textbooks on American government and the American presidency present the electoral college.

INTRODUCTION: DATELINE, NOVEMBER 7, 2000

November 7, 2000 was supposed to produce a president for the nation. What the controversial election initiated, among other things, was a national civics lesson. The post-election morass featured political pundits and even polished network anchors awkwardly trying to explain recounts, spoiled ballots, and chads--hanging, dimpled, pregnant, and the like. But, perhaps the story of the election, told by reporters over red and blue electoral maps and, at times, inaccurately, was the electoral college. Voters learned that Al Gore, the candidate with over one half million more popular votes than George W. Bush, was not the winner.

The national civics lesson that accompanied the controversial presidential election revealed just how little the press, public, and experts knew about the electoral college. The mistakes by the Voter News Service, a consortium of major news organizations, in reading the exit polls were just the start. All five networks called Florida and the overall election prematurely not once but twice, prompting NBC's Tom Brokaw to quip, "We [the networks] don't just have egg on our face, we have omelet." From there, questions began to arise: What was the electoral college? How does it work? Why was it invented and why is it still used? The media struggled to find commentators capable of answering these questions accurately. The political scientist and political commentator, Larry J. Sabato, ultimately summed up the fiasco as "political bloopers." [1]

Americans know little about the mechanics of the electoral college, and perhaps less about its origins. [2] This was apparent in the aftermath of the 2000 election and is probably well known by those teaching courses in political science or working in election administration. At the same time, public opinion polls reveal that the majority of citizens favor eliminating the electoral college, and many continue to state concerns about why it still exists and why it cannot be improved. Scholars, on the other hand, are bitterly divided on whether it works and whether it needs to be reformed. [3] Countless reforms have been advanced, but the electoral college remains intact. In fact, electoral college reform was not part of the election reform bill signed by President Bush in late 2002. Before a constructive dialog on the matter can take place, it is necessary to determine how much Americans know about the electoral college and how it is being presented in, among other places, university classrooms. The former endeavor is quite ambitious and is beyond the focus of this paper, which examines and evaluates the treatment of the electoral college in leading college textbooks in the fields of American government and the presidency.

FLUNKING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

The process by which the United States elects its president is different from the way every other elected official in the country is chosen. That much is clear. But, as to just how this process works, and whether or not it does work is quite another matter. Prominent scholars note that, "Over the years, no other provision has drawn so much criticism or provoked so many constitutional amendments as has the electoral college clause" [4]; and "Few aspects of the American political system are more regularly or bitterly assailed than the electoral college." [5] One such assailant is the late political scientist and former presidential elector, Lawrence Longley, who called the electoral college "deplorable." [6] The American Bar Association described it as nothing less than "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect and dangerous." [7]

Clearly, there is another side to the debate [8], but the controversy and questions surrounding the electoral college are undeniable. And this dates to its invention. In fact, in the two century-plus history of the electoral college, roughly 700 proposals to reform it have been introduced to Congress. James Wilson, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Pennsylvania, referred to the task of determining how to select a president as "the most difficult issue of all on which we have to decide." [9] Indeed, the Framers struggled with the matter of choosing a president, pondering whether to give such a task to the Congress or directly to the people, or whether to develop some other means for electing the president. Various proposals were voted down at one point or another during the Convention. The resulting electoral college was the byproduct of compromise and the actions of a special committee charged with hammering out such unresolved concerns. Less an ideological invention, the electoral college was seen by the Framers as a practical solution to practical problems, an instrument adhering to the tenets of federalism, and a compromise between large and small states and other interests. [10] In fact, most Framers could not envision a presidential candidate besides Washington who could command a majority of votes. Under the electoral college scheme presidential selections by the Congress were expected to be somewhat normal. Of course, the development of a two-party system altered this expectation.

The Mechanics of the Electoral College

It is perhaps easier to say what the electoral college is not rather than what it is. The electoral college is not a direct, popular election. When voters cast a vote for the president on Tuesday after the first Monday every fourth November, they are technically casting that vote for other people. These people--party leaders and loyalists, state and local officials--are known as electors and are selected according to means determined by the states. Technically, the state legislatures have the power to appoint electors directly, but in practice, this undertaking is given to the people through a variety of methods. The most common means found among the states for determining electors is for state conventions of the parties to nominate electors. In a few states the nomination of electors is made by state political committees, and, less rarely, the nomination of electors occurs in primary elections. Thus, the method of selecting electors varies from political party control to a small percentage of states that allow for voter control.

The Constitution mandates that electors cannot be senators or representatives or any "person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States." Most are party loyalists who remain virtually unknown to the average voter. The number of electoral votes each states receives is equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation: the number of representatives plus two senators. Or, as is stated in the Constitution, "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 Congress." These electors then assemble in their respective state capitals to cast their vote for president. This date was originally set as the first Wednesday in December, but was changed by Congress in 1877 to the second Monday in January so as to allow for more time to reconcile electoral problems. The present arrangement calling for electors to cast their votes on Monday after the second Wednesday in December was set by Congress in 1934, after the ratification of Amendment XX, which moved the presidential inauguration from March 4 to January 20.

Making things more confusing, some states require electors to cast their votes according to how the state voted, while others do not. This remains a contentious legal issue, as under the Constitution electors function as "free agents," with the fight to break with their states to cast a vote for another candidate. This has occurred historically, but there have been fewer than ten "faithless" electors in the post-World War II era. [11] Some states have enacted specific statutory provisions requiring electors to vote for the ticket of the party that nominated them while other states require electors to pledge that they will support their party's candidate.

The electoral college is often described as a "winner-take-all" system, whereby the candidate winning the most popular votes receives all the state's electoral votes. The only exceptions to this are the states of Maine, which adopted in 1969 (it went into effect in 1972), and Nebraska, which adopted in 1992, a district system of granting their electoral votes. To win the presidency, a candidate needs to secure a majority--or 270--of the 538 electors. In the event no candidate achieves this threshold, the House of Representatives selects the president among the top three candidates, with each state delegation casting one vote. A majority vote (26) in the House is therefore needed to win. Although the District of Columbia was granted electoral votes (not to exceed the amount held by the least populous state) by Amendment XXIII (1961), it has no role in this "tie breaker" mechanism.

Controversy and Complexity

The election of 2000 was not the first time the outcome of the electoral college resulted in controversy. It has happened four times before. The election of 1800 produced a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who ran as a team. The tie had to be broken in the House of Representatives and required three-dozen ballots to reconcile. Even though Amendment XXII to the Constitution (1804) was designed to resolve such problems, only two decades would pass before another controversy. The 1824 election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson failed to produce a clear winner and, even though Jackson carried the popular vote, Adams won a majority in the House of Representatives. The winner of the popular vote would again lose the presidency in 1876, when a commission appointed to rectify an electoral controversy decided on behalf of Rutherford B. Hayes, who had fewer votes than his opponent Samuel Tilden. The controversy involved three southern states--Louisiana, South Carolina, and, as fate would have it, Florida--all of whom had sent more than one slate of electors to Washington. For instance, in Florida the state high court had certified the Democratic contingent, while the governor had approved the Republican slate. The outcome of the electoral college hung in the balance over the votes of these three states, all of whom were awarded under suspicious circumstances to Hayes, the Republican candidate. Yet another discrepancy occurred in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland despite winning fewer popular votes.

The system the Framers created for determining a president has been criticized for being undemocratic, archaic, and advantageous for, to some critics, large states and, to other critics, small states. [12] It may not come as a surprise that the system has also been criticized for being too complex and misunderstood by the electorate.

METHODOLOGY

To address the issue of how the electoral college is being presented in political science textbooks, two types of books were selected for analysis: general textbooks in American government/politics; and textbooks on the U.S. presidency. The American government texts are typically used in lower-division (freshman), introductory courses on the topic, whereas the presidency texts are typically used in upper-division (junior/senior) courses on the presidency, allowing us to examine texts at both levels. Leading texts in the field were selected. These are, for the most part, comprehensive texts, ranging from 600 to 700-plus pages for American government texts and from 300 to 400-plus pages for presidency texts. All are written by prominent scholars, recognized as experts in the feld. As such, they represent the finest texts available for undergraduate students. A list of the textbooks used appears in Tables 1 and 2.

Ten comprehensive, general American government texts and ten presidency texts were selected. Because books on the presidency are by definition specific to the presidency, an array was selected by the authors in an effort to diversify the type of books under analysis and gauge the treatment of the electoral college across the sub-field of presidential studies. This includes best sellers in the field (DiClerico; Pika et al), leading, comprehensive texts (Edwards and Wayne), shorter, concise volumes (Pfiffner), edited texts (Shapiro et al), and texts that focus on specific issues and themes in the presidency (Cronin and Genovese; Rose). Nonetheless, all of the presidency books selected are written or edited by respected scholars, are adopted as texts for classroom use, are well known books in the field, and, in our opinion, are excellent texts. So too are an array of publishers represented, including such leaders in the field as Allyn & Bacon, Congressional Quarterly, McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall, Bedford/St. Martin's, and so on. The texts are all recent publications, with most being released since the 2000 election.

ANALYSIS

The results of manifest content analysis are listed in Tables 3 and 4. Four categories of information are analyzed by the authors: references; paragraphs, pages, and miscellaneous. The miscellaneous category includes photographs, cartoons, figures, graphs, tables, footnotes, references, resources, and other materials devoted to the electoral college. Because the electoral college has been the focus of and has been altered by numerous constitutional amendments, the authors felt that the inclusion of the Constitution (or at least the pertinent amendments and articles) in the book would assist students in learning about the electoral college. Whether or not the book includes a copy of the Constitution is also listed in the tables below. Because the length of the books under analysis varied, the total number of pages was also listed in the table. In order to compare books of varying size, the percentage of pages devoted to the electoral college was calculated and listed in the tables.

What constitutes sufficient treatment of the electoral college? In order to adequately treat the electoral college, the authors believe it is necessary to present its basic mechanics and characteristics, design and important developments, and central debates and controversies. [14] Accordingly, the authors developed four criteria for the latent content analysis to determine the adequacy, depth, and quality of coverage: 1) the design by the Framers and continued development of the electoral college, with consideration to the reasons why it was invented; 2) the mechanics of how the electoral college works; 3) the real impact of the electoral college on presidential campaign strategies; and 4) the strengths and weaknesses of the electoral college, its controversies and contested elections, and proposed reforms.

To be assigned to the maximum category, the text had to treat the topic in a systematic, sustained manner, providing examples and historical discussion of the electoral college, and meet all four criteria. Those texts meeting some of the four criteria or barely addressing each of the four without a sustained or systematic assessment were placed in the "moderate" category. This amount of coverage marks the threshold used to determine adequate treatment of the electoral college. Those failing to meet the criteria were placed in the "minimum" category. The results appear in Tables 5 and 6. Arrows listed next to the rating indicate that, in the judgment of the authors, a category is leaning in one direction or another toward the next category. For instance, a moderate classification could be leaning toward maximum and would be indicated by a forward (>) arrow.

The manifest content analysis indicates that, on average, the amount of references, paragraphs, and pages of the presidency texts devoted to the electoral college are quite similar to those found in the American government texts. American government texts have, on average, roughly eight more references than American presidency texts. This is quite remarkable (even discounting the somewhat larger size of the American government texts) considering the primary focus of the presidency texts on the presidency and the wide array of topics needing to be addressed in the American government texts. The latent content analysis indicates that very few texts in either category make the maximum designation. Only one American government and three presidency texts were assigned to the maximum category. In addition, more presidency texts than American government texts were leaning toward the maximum category, which would meet our expectation that the higher-division presidency texts would offer more sophisticated coverage to the topic. Also, very few texts were assigned to the minimum category. In general, it can be suggested that the leading texts in the fields treat the electoral college in a manner sufficient for it to be adequately understood by university students.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Although it is beyond the scope of this article, the failure of government, educators, (some) textbooks, and the media to provide accurate and helpful information on the electoral college might be contributing to the growing distrust Americans demonstrate for politics and government in general, and the electoral system in particular. [16] It is possible that public attitudes toward the electoral college would be influenced by the nature and extent of coverage in textbooks (at least among those individuals educated in college, directly, and indirectly through the dissemination of more accurate and comprehensive information on the electoral college by those exposed to the texts). If so, from the sample of leading texts analyzed in this article one would anticipate an adequate understanding of the electoral college. Moreover, the textbooks are neither overtly critical nor supportive of the electoral college; rather, the coverage is fair and balanced.

An exception is that textbooks tend to emphasize the Framers' distrust of the public to a degree that distorts the other pressing concerns they had regarding the question of how to select a president. Overall, the authors of the texts under analysis do an admirable job in presenting the electoral college. A few do an outstanding job (those in the "maximum" category and those in the "moderate" category designated as ">" leaning to maximum), especially--and perhaps not surprisingly--some of the presidency texts. It is a challenge for general American government texts to cover the topic thoroughly, given their charge of presenting such a wide array of topics for an introductory readership. However, most of them cover other topics in the field in great detail and in considerable length. Moreover, all students--not just the political science majors enrolled in presidency courses--are prospective voters and need to be educated about how presidents are chosen. Accordingly, we believe these American government texts could increase the extent and depth of their treatment of the electoral college.

The coverage was impressive for such presidency texts as Cohen and Nice (The Presidency), Pfiffner (The Modern Presidency), and Pika, Maltese, and Thomas (The Politics of the Presidency). So too do the DiClerico (The American President), Edwards and Wayne (Presidential Leadership), and Pious (The Presidency) books do a worthy job of presenting the electoral college to students. All these books also present the material in an easy to understand manner that is suitable for undergraduates. Students reading them would be well educated about the electoral college. Given the fact that the Cronin and Genovese (The Paradoxes of the American Presidency) and Daynes, Tatalovich, and Soden (To Govern a Nation) books focused on a specific facet of the presidency (which was not the electoral college), they do a most admirable and thorough job in covering the topic.

While we admit that it is difficult to compare books on the presidency--edited volumes and those with a more narrow focus on an area of the presidency--it is nonetheless worth consideration. This is the case with the edited volume by Shapiro, Kumar, and Jacobs and the book by Rose, books that otherwise present worthy studies of their subject at hand but do not discuss the electoral college. The electoral college would appear to be beyond their scope and objectives. Given the interest in and significance of the electoral college's "misfire" in 2000, one might expect an even more detailed treatment of it in forthcoming presidency (and perhaps American government) texts, including updated editions of the books under analysis. Moreover, even those books with narrower topics and audiences might find it necessary to incorporate some discussion of the topic. The subject, after all, lends itself to being treated in numerous places within the text, as it touches upon many topics beyond elections and even the presidency. For instance, it pertains to the nation's founding, the Constitution, civil liberties and the expansion of suffrage rights, Supreme Court politics, presidential campaigns, elections, and so on.

We recommend the electoral college be integrated within a broader range of topics in American government and American presidency texts, and college curricula, due to its importance. In addition, we would suggest coupling this treatment of the electoral college with the philosophy that founded the institution and the historical misfires. The misfired elections would also lend themselves well to case studies. It is likely that many instructors have witnessed an increased interest by students in the electoral college. From an obscure topic, seemingly more applicable for a trivia contest from a student's perspective, it has, for better or for worse, captured the world's attention. We admit to being pleased with the growing interest--in the wake of the 2000 election controversy--in the electoral college by students. The election controversy not only provides textbook authors and instructors with a host of important and interesting examples that touch upon many topics, but an opportunity to speak to an attentive audience. Indeed, one would expect--and should demand--that coverage on the electoral college improve after 2000, as students, instructors, and textbook publishers respond to the applicability of the topic.

Table 1. American Government Textbooks Analyzed

Barbour, Christine, and Gerald C. Wright. Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics. 2001. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Burns, James MacGregor, J. W. Peltason, Thomas Cronin, and David B. Magleby.. 2001. Government by the People. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Edwards, George C. III, Martin Wattenberg, and Robert Lineberry. 2002. Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Fiorina, Morris P., and Paul E. Peterson. 2001. The New American Democracy. New York: Longman Publishers.

Ginsberg, Benjamin, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weir. 1997. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.

Greenberg, Edward S., and Benjamin I. Page. 2002. The Struggle for Democracy. New York: Longman Publishers.

Kernell, Samuel, and Gary C. Jacobson. 2003. The Logic of American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Schmidt, Steffen W., Mack C. Shelley II, and Barbara A. Bardes. 1997. American Government and Politics Today. Belmont, Calif.: Wasdworth Publishing.

Sidlow, Edward, and Beth Henschen. 2000. America at Odds. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Wilson, James Q., and John J. DiIulio, Jr. 2001. American Government. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

These texts were analyzed for content by more than one of us in an effort to get as many eyes on the texts as possible and reduce any potential bias from one evaluator. Detailed notes were developed for each text concerning the data. Two levels of analysis were employed [13], both recognized as viable methods for performing content analysis. [14] The first level was manifest content analysis, which involved counting the total number of references to the electoral college, both general and specific. The authors also counted the number of paragraphs and pages where the topic was discussed, as well as any photographs, cartoons, figures, graphs, tables, footnotes, references, resources, and other materials devoted to the electoral college. The results are listed in Tables 3 and 4.

The second level of analysis was latent content analysis, which involved assessing the depth and quality of coverage devoted to the electoral college. After reading the text, each was assigned to one of three categories of treatment: minimum; moderate; and maximum

Table 2. Presidency Textbooks Analyzed

Cohen, Jeffrey, and David Nice. 2003. The Presidency. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cronin, Thomas E., and Michael A. Genovese. 1998. The Paradoxes of the American Presidency. New York: Oxford University Press.

Daynes, Byron W., Raymond Tatalovich, and Dennis L. Soden. 1998. To Govern a Nation: Presidential Power and Politics. New York: St. Martin's Press.

DiClerico, Robert. 2000. The American President. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Edwards, George C. III, and Stephen J. Wayne. 2003. Presidential Leadership: Politics and Policy Making. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Pfiffner, James P.. The Modern Presidency. 2000. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Pika, Joseph A., John Anthony Maltese, and Norman C. Thomas. 2002. The Politics of the Presidency. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Pious, Richard M.. 1996. The Presidency. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rose, Richard. 1991. The Postmodern President: George Bush Meets the WorM. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers.

Shapiro, Robert Y., Martha Joynt Kumar, and Lawrence R. Jacobs, eds. 2000. Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Columbia University Press.

Table 3. References to the Electoral College (American Government
Texts)

                                                     Text    % of
Text                 Refs.   Para.   Pages   Misc.   Pages   Text

Barbour & Wright      39      15      3        8      880    0.34
Burns et al           67      30      5        4      584    0.86
Edwards et al         41      14      3        3      769    0.39
Ginsberg et al        21      12      3        4      854    0.35
Greenberg & Page      39      15      3        4      647    0.46
Fiorina & Peterson    75      22      3.7      7      784    0.47
Kemell & Jacobson     23      12      2.5      2      622    0.40
Schmidt et al         36      24      5        9      762    0.66
Sidlow & Henschen     28      12      2        2      640    0.31
Wilson & Dilulio      17      18      3        7      703    0.43

Averages              38.6    17.4    3.32

Text                 Const.

Barbour & Wright      Yes
Burns et al           Yes
Edwards et al         Yes
Ginsberg et al        Yes
Greenberg & Page      Yes
Fiorina & Peterson    Yes
Kemell & Jacobson     Yes
Schmidt et al         Yes
Sidlow & Henschen     Yes
Wilson & Dilulio      Yes

Averages

Key: Refs=Total references on the Electoral College

Para=Total paragraphs on the Electoral College

Pages=Total pages on the Electoral College

Misc=Miscellaneous material on the Electoral College

Text Size=Total number of pages in the book

% of Text=Percentage of pages in book devoted to Electoral College

Const=Does book include copy of Constitution?

Table 4. References to the Electoral College (Presidency Texts)

                                                    Text    % of
Text                Refs.   Para.   Pages   Misc.   Pages   Text

Cohen & Nice         47      21      5.25     2      482    1.09
Cronin & Genovese    54      24      4.8      5      446    1.08
Daynes et al         37      20      5        3      367    1.36
DiClerico             7       6      1.5      2      414    0.36
Edwards & Wayne      38      25      5        3      576    0.87
Pfiffner             14      23      5.75     0      242    2.11
Pika et al           48      28      8        5      458    1.75
Pious                49      24      6        5      544    1.10
Rose                  9       3      1        2      397    0.25
Shapiro et al         2       0      1        0      541    0.01

Averages             30.5    17.4    4.23

Text                 Const.

Cohen & Nice          Yes
Cronin & Genovese     No
Daynes et al          No
DiClerico             No
Edwards & Wayne       Yes
Pfiffner              Yes
Pika et al            Yes
Pious                 Yes
Rose                  Yes
Shapiro et al         No

Averages

Key: Refs=Total references on the Electoral College

Para=Total paragraphs on the Electoral College

Pages=Total pages on the Electoral College

Misc=Miscellaneous material on the Electoral College

Text Size=Total number of pages in the book

% of Text=Percentage of pages in book devoted to Electoral College

Const=Does book include copy of Constitution?

Table 5. Coverage of Electoral College (American Government Texts)

                               Levels of Treatment
Text                 Minimum        Moderate         Maximum

Barbour & Wright                       < X
Burns et al                            X >
Edwards et al                          X >
Ginsberg et al                         < X
Greenberg & Page                       < X
Fiorina & Peterson                                      X
Kernell & Jacobson                     < X
Schmidt et al                          X >
Sidlow & Henschen       X
Wilson & Dilulio        X

Note. Arrows indicate high (>) and low (<) scores within the three
levels

Table 6. Coverage of Electoral College (Presidency Texts)

                               Levels of Treatment
Text                 Minimum        Moderate         Maximum

Cohen & Nice                                            X
Cronin & Genovese                      X >
Daynes et al                           X >
DiClerico                              X
Edwards & Wayne                        X >
Pfiffner                                                X
Pika et al                                              X
Pious                                  X >
Rose                    X
Shapiro et al           X

Note. Arrows indicate high (>) and low (low) scores within the three
levels

NOTES

(1) Larry J. Sabato. Overtime! The Election 2000 Thriller. New York: Longman Publishers, 2002, p. 111.

(2) Thomas E. Cronin. 'Forward The Electoral College Controversy," in Judith A. Best, ed., The Choice of the People? Debating the Electoral College. Lanham, M.d.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996, p. viii.

(3) Judith A. Best. The Choice of the People? Debating the Electoral College. Lanham, M.d.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996; Lawrence D. Longley and Neal R. Peirce. The Electoral College Primer 2000. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999.

(4) Shlomo Slomin. "Designing the Electoral College," in Thomas E. Cronin, ed, Inventing the American Presidency. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1989, p. 3.

(5) Richard J. Ellis, ed. Founding the American Presidency. Lanham, M.d.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999, p. 110.

(6) Lawrence D. Longley. "The Electoral College Should Be Abolished," in Robert E. DiClerico and Allan S. Hammock, eds., Points of View: Readings in American Government and Politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998, p. 93.

(7) As quoted in Judith Best, The Choice of the People? p. 5.

(8) See Best, The Choice of the People?

(9) The James Wilson quote comes from the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 501, edited by Max Farrand. The Records of the Federal Convention, 4 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937.

(10) Cronin, "Forward"; Abner Greene. Understanding the 2000 Election. New York: New York University Press, 2001; Longley and Pierce, The Electoral College Primer.

(11) For instance, in 1988 an elector from West Virginia switched the order of the Democratic ticket by voting for Lloyd Bensten/Michael Dukakis.

(12) Best, The Choice of the People?

(13) This methodology has been used before by the authors to examine textbooks. See Anthony J. Eksterowicz and Robert P. Watson. "Treatment of First Ladies in American Government and Presidency Textbooks: Overlooked, Yet Influential Voices," PS: Political Science & Politics 23, 3 (September 2000): 589-595.

(14) Earl Babbie. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 1983.

(15) There were many useful sources consulted by the authors in developing a list of the most important characteristics of the electoral college. These include Best, 1996; Cronin, Thomas E., ed. 1989. Inventing the American Presidency. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas; Ellis, 1999; Farrand, 1937; Longley and Peirce, 1999; Slonin, Shlomo. 1986. "The Electoral College at Philadelphia," Journal of American History 73 (June): 35-38; as well as the Constitution and amendments to the Constitution.

(16) Wilson Carey McWilliams. "The Meaning of the Election," in Gerald M. Pomper, ed., The Election of 2000. New York: Chatham House, 2001.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group