Introduction

Winning the presidency in the United States requires reaching the top majority, which is also known as the electoral college. The electoral college is an indirect voting system whereby citizens vote for “electors” who then cast their votes for the President and Vice President. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate with the most electoral votes, not necessarily the candidate that wins the popular vote. In this article, we’ll explore what it means to reach the top majority in the United States, how the electoral college system works, and some pros and cons of this system.

What is the Electoral College System?

The electoral college is a group of electors who represent their states in the presidential election. Each state has a certain number of electors, which is determined by the number of Representatives and Senators that state has in Congress. The District of Columbia is also allowed to participate in the electoral college, with three electors.The number of electors for each state varies, but the total number of electors is 538, which is equal to the total number of Representatives and Senators in Congress. To win the presidency, a candidate must have an absolute majority of the electoral votes, which is 270 out of 538.

How Does The Electoral College Work?

In the United States, the electoral college works as follows:

1. The citizens of each state vote for their preferred presidential candidate and their vice presidential running mate.

2. The votes are tallied, and the candidate that wins the popular vote in each state gets all of that state’s electoral votes.

3. The electors from each state then cast their votes for the President and Vice President, based on the popular vote in their state.

4. The candidate with the majority of electoral votes becomes the President, and the candidate with the second-most electoral votes becomes the Vice President.

Pros of the Electoral College System

1. Equal Representation of States

One of the primary advantages of the electoral college system is that it helps to ensure that all states receive equal representation in the presidential election. In a direct popular vote system, candidates would focus their campaigns on the most populous states, neglecting smaller states. Under the electoral college system, every state is significant in determining the outcome of the presidential election.

2. Precludes Voter Fraud

The electoral college also helps to preclude voter fraud by making it challenging for an individual candidate or party to influence election results. Since each state’s electoral votes are calculated independently, it’s not possible for any one candidate or party to manipulate the results in their favor.

3. Guarantees a Clear Winner

The electoral college ensures that the winner of the presidential election is determined by an absolute majority of the electoral votes. This prevents a situation in which a candidate who has only a slight lead in the popular vote, but not the majority, wins the Presidency. Instead, it sets a required majority that candidates must obtain.

Cons of the Electoral College System

1. Disregards the Popular Vote

The primary criticism of the electoral college system is that it can disregard the wishes of the popular vote who favored a particular candidate. If a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote, the entire system is called into question. Such criticisms have led to renewed calls for the abolition or reform of the electoral college system.

2. Contributes to a Two-Party System

The electoral college system also contributes to the growth of a two-party political system, where only two major parties compete for presidential power. Since third-party candidates do not typically have full backing in several states, they are unlikely to win an election, leading to increased polarization and the lack of variation in candidates on offer.

3. Can Disadvantage Minorities

The electoral college system means that the votes cast by citizens in certain states may count for less than those others. This outcome can disadvantage some minoritarian groups and lead to their feelings of dispossession from mainstream politics. Political parties tend give attention concerns smaller or areas, therefore marginalizing constituents.

Conclusion

The electoral college system has contributed to the uniqueness of the United States’ political process. It has advantages, such as promoting the equal representation of states, precluding voter fraud, and guaranteeing a clear winner. However, it disregards the popular vote, contributes to a two-party system, and can disadvantage minorities.

The electoral college remains a subject of debate in the US, with some calling for the system’s abolition or reform. The importance of reaching the top majority means more than a simple majority of the popular vote in presidential elections in the US, and the debate on political representation continues in earnest.The electoral college is a system based upon majority, as opposed to plurality. The key difference is simply that a majority-based system will only provide for election success to the individual or party that earns over half the votes, while a plurality-based system will give election success to the individual or party that earns the most votes. The difference seems to be rooted in semantics, but it is important, especially when viewed in light of the electoral college, which changes the idea of majority from what it might be in a popular vote.

If the American presidential election system as established by the Second Article of the Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment were a plurality-based system, then a candidate voted for by only a small fraction of the country might win the election. This is because that candidate would only have to earn more electoral votes in the electoral college than all the other candidates in order to win. If there were a great many candidates, then each one would steal some votes from the others, and what would likely wind up happening is that no one of those many candidates would actually win a majority of votes, while one would win a plurality of electoral votes.

This would have the unfortunate side effect of resulting in a President-Elect who was not actually voted for by a majority of voters in the electoral college, and therefore, by extension was likely not voted for by a majority of citizens in America.  Instead of such a system, then, the electoral college uses a system based on majority, in which the candidate with the most electoral votes still wins, but that candidate has to have at least half of all the total votes in order to successfully win the election outright. If no candidate earns such a majority of electoral votes, then the decision of which candidate wins the race would actually fall to the House of Representatives, according to the Twelfth Amendment.

The House of Representatives would be able to vote on the top three receivers of electoral votes, but would still need to reach a quorum to elect any of those candidates.  The majority required of the electoral college is not a majority of citizens in the country and is detached from the popular vote. The majority is instead an absolute majority of electoral votes, which means that it is a majority made up of over half of all possible votes in the electoral college. This is different from a simple majority, which would be over half of all the votes that are actually entered into the system.

For instance, an elector can, theoretically, abstain from a vote, but this would not change the fact that the elector would be counted for purposes of determining an absolute majority of electoral votes. A given candidate can win an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes (at the current time) without, in theory, winning a majority of the popular vote. This is, however, difficult in practice, as most cases in which a candidate wins a majority of votes in the electoral college also involves that candidate winning a majority of the popular vote and those situations in which the candidate did not win the popular vote were very close elections.

Understanding Article 2: The Powers and Responsibilities of the Executive Branch

Introduction:

Article 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch of the government. This branch of government is responsible for enforcing law and implementing public policy. In this article, we will give a detailed explanation of Article 2 and its significance in the American legal system.

Section 1: The President

Article 2 establishes the role of the President as the head of the executive branch. The President is granted several powers under this article, including:

– The power to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces

– The power to negotiate treaties

– The power to grant pardons and reprieves

– The power to nominate judges and other officials

– The power to veto legislation

The President’s term of office is four years, with the possibility for re-election to a second term.

Section 2: The Vice President

Article 2 also outlines the role of the Vice President of the United States. The Vice President is next in the line of succession after the President and is responsible for assuming the role of President in the event of the President’s death or inability to carry out their duties.

The Vice President also serves as the President of the Senate and can cast a decisive vote in the event of a tie.

Section 3: Succession and Impeachment

Article 2 outlines the line of succession following the Vice President. In the event that both the President and Vice President are unable to fulfill their duties, the role passes to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, and then to the Cabinet members in order of the creation of their department.

Impeachment is also addressed in Article 2, with the President, Vice President, and other officials subject to removal from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The House of Representatives has the power to impeach, and the Senate is responsible for conducting a trial to determine guilt or innocence.

Section 4: The Significance of Article 2

Article 2 establishes the executive branch of the government and outlines the powers and responsibilities of the President. The scope of these powers reflects the principle of separation of powers, where each branch of government shares responsibility and authority. This principle helps ensure that no single branch of government becomes too powerful or unchecked.

However, the debate on systematic reform of the executive branch raises critical questions about the balance of power. In recent years, there has been a growing debate regarding the potential need for systematic reform of the executive branch. Some individuals have argued that the powers granted to the President under Article 2 may be too broad or unchecked, and that additional oversight may be necessary to avoid any misuse of power.

Conclusion:

Article 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch of the government. This branch plays a critical role in enforcing laws and implementing public policy.

The establishment of the executive branch helps ensure that no single branch of government becomes too powerful or unchecked and that they have enough control to maintain America’s stability. The provisions within Article 2 that touch on succession and impeachment provide a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power by executive leaders.

The vesting clause of any Article of the Constitution is the clause under which executive power is vested into a specific body or group. The First Article of the Constitution has a vesting clause giving power to Congress, in the form of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Third Article of the Constitution has a vesting clause giving power to a single Supreme Court.

In the Second Article of the Constitution, the body vested with power is the President of the United States of America. The President, unlike either of the other two bodies designated as recipients of vesting clauses in other Articles of the Constitution, is a single individual given full executive powers. The executive powers given to the President in the vesting clause include a number of different elements, most of which are described in Section 2 of the Second Article. The first of the executive powers described is command of the military.

The President is given power by the Constitution as the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States of America. Though this is less significant now, he is also given power as the commander of the militia of the states when the militia is actually rounded up. Though the President does have executive powers as Commander in Chief, however, he does not have the power to declare war. Another of the executive powers granted to the President is the ability to have any leading officer of any executive department submit a report to the President in writing, thereby giving the President power to command these officers to advise him. This is the executive power that creates the Cabinet, effectively.

The President is given the executive power to grant pardons or reprieves, with the exception that this executive power does not extend over situations of impeachment. A President does not have executive powers to pardon himself. Yet another one of the executive powers given to the President is that he can ratify treaties, though this power is restricted, as it requires the President to obtain approval from the Senate. Treaties, in this sense, refer to international agreements, though treaties are only one type of international agreement possible. There are some types of international agreement, known as sole-executive agreements, which require only the approval of the President. But executive powers concerning treaties specifically do require the President to obtain a two-thirds approval from the Senate before ratifying the treaty in question.

The President is given executive powers concerning the appointment of a large number of public officials, including judges and ambassadors. These approvals do require the approval of the Senate as well, but the President is thus given executive powers to appoint any officers whose appointment is not specifically defined elsewhere in the Constitution. The President is also given executive powers to appoint public officials of a lower level without needing to obtain the approval of the Senate. Finally, the President is given executive powers to make recess appointments. A recess appointment is an appointment to a senior Federal position without the approval of the Senate because the Senate is in recess at the time that the appointment is made. All recess appointments still have to be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, and as such, the Senate can undue the President’s recess appointments.

Introduction

Direct democracy involves citizens directly electing their leaders without an intermediary, while indirect democracy involves citizens electing representatives who make decisions on their behalf. While representative democracy is the most popular form of democracy practiced worldwide, it can take different forms, including indirect popular voting. Indirect popular voting refers to a democracy where citizens elect representatives, who then cast ballots on their behalf for a particular candidate or policy position. This article explores the concept of indirect popular voting, its pros and cons, and how it is applied in other countries.

Definition of Indirect Popular Voting

Indirect popular voting, also known as an indirect election, is a democratic system that involves citizens electing representatives, who then vote on their behalf. The term “popular” refers to the public election of representatives, while “indirect” refers to the subsequent voting by these representatives on behalf of their constituents. In this system, voters elect representatives, who then elect officials to various positions in government, such as the President, Vice President, or a particular policy. Indirect popular voting can take different forms, such as the Electoral College in the United States, where electors cast their votes on behalf of citizens, or the Parliamentary system, where citizens elect Members of Parliament, who in turn elect the Prime Minister.

Pros of Indirect Popular Voting

1. Provides a System of Checks and Balances

One of the advantages of indirect popular voting is its provision of a system of checks and balances. Indirect popular voting helps to ensure that there are several layers of representation and evaluation. This system ensures that all perspectives are well-represented and that a diversity of viewpoints is considered. This way, it’s less likely that the ruling authorities are authoritarian in their leadership style and more likely that they will govern according to what’s best for the citizenry.

2. Promotes Impartiality

Another pro of indirect popular voting is that representatives have the responsibility of voting without fear or favor since they are not directly accountable to the voters. Officials elected under indirect popular voting must act for the wider population and not the particular interests of their constituency or supporters. This way, they focus more on what’s right for the wider population as a whole rather than individual entities.

3. Helps to Avoid Electoral Fraud

Indirect popular voting helps to avoid electoral fraud since it’s challenging to rig the election system. It also prevents the ruling authorities from abusing their power by tampering with the electoral process. In an indirect popular voting system, there’s a lower temptation to manipulate the system as only a few individuals can do the actual casting of the votes, thereby minimizing the prospect of electoral fraud.

4. Encourages Higher Voter Turnout

An indirect popular voting system can encourage higher voter turnout since citizens feel that their vote counts. It also minimizes the problem of low voter turnout caused by obstacles like voter disenfranchisement, apathy or inconvenience because of logistics issues. Thus, there is much less fear of missing out since the representative systems help to ensure the voices of citizens are adequately represented even when they haven’t explicitly cast a ballot.

Cons of Indirect Popular Voting 

1. It Can Result in the Majority Not Winning

One of the criticisms of indirect popular voting is that it can result in a case where the majority’s choice doesn’t win. This is because officials elected under an indirect popular voting system are not bound by the will of all the voters in their jurisdiction, and as such, can support a candidate that does not necessarily represent all the voters in that particular jurisdiction. This may disproportionately benefit particular interests at the expense of the wider population.

2. The Electoral College System in the United States Has Disadvantages

The electoral college system used in the United States, which is an example of an indirect popular voting system, has been a subject of controversy for years. Critics of this system claim that it nullifies the popular vote and favors certain areas over others. Proponents of the system claim that it helps smaller, rural states have a voice in choosing the President instead of being overshadowed by high population states.

3. It Can Create Political Oligarchies

An indirect popular voting system can quickly lead to the creation of political oligarchies in which a small group of individuals control the political landscape of the country. This oligarchy can develop within a particular political party or interests, and without sufficient oversight, lead to the disenfranchisement of other citizens. The elitism-driven nature of indirect popular voting can lead to political monopolies, a problem that may not be able to get mitigated.

4. Can lead to Corruption

Another con of indirect popular voting is that it can lead to corruption. Elected officials may make decisions based on benefits and favoritism rather than the interests of the people, potentially harming the stability of the country and undermining the democratic process. When representatives don’t vote according to the wishes of their constituents, transparency in governance is tarnished and an exploitative political system becomes entrenched.

Application of Indirect Popular Voting in Other Countries

Indirect popular voting is used worldwide, and many countries have leveraged this system for years. Countries adopting an indirect popular voting system include:

1. India

India has a parliamentary system, which is an example of indirect popular voting. India elects individuals to a primary parliamentary position, which then elects the President. In this system, the President is not directly elected by citizens, as is typical in a direct democracy. Instead, the people’s representatives cast the ballots on citizens’ behalf, making it an indirect election.

2. South Africa 

a democratic system that entrenches the indirect popular voting system. The country adopted an electoral system that ensures representatives elected from their district will vote for the next President. It minimizes the direct election of Presidents but still ensures the people’s views are adequately represented in the election process.

3. Canada

In Canada, the Head of State is the monarch represented by the Governor-General, who is appointed by the reigning monarch on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister. The Governor-General relies on the advice of Cabinet Ministers and other significant officials when they perform their duties.

Conclusion

Indirect popular voting has advantages and disadvantages and has been used worldwide, with many countries adapting different variants to fit their unique democratic systems. While the concept of indirect popular voting may result in a loss of the majority’s choice, it also promotes impartiality, minimizes the prospects of electoral fraud, promotes independence, helps to avoid voter disenfranchisement and logistical problems, and encourages higher voter turnout.

However, it can also lead to political oligarchies, corruption, and potentially undermine the democratic process. Indirect popular voting systems require constant reviews and transparency vis-à-vis the mechanisms of ensuring fair representation.The Second Article of the Constitution establishes the electoral college as a system of indirect popular voting in order to elect the President of the United States. This system is differentiated from a system based upon direct popular vote in that it is possible for a presidential candidate to win the popular vote while losing the actual election. The Constitution separates citizen voters from the actual election for the President in order to prevent a tyranny of the majority, among other aims.

When the Founding Fathers were developing the Constitution, they had to deal with certain facts of the day and age. A direct system, based only on popular vote, seemed unfeasible for practical reasons, including a lack of organization for the political system coupled with issues concerning the speed of communication. At the time, there were not political parties and there was no clear system for determining how many candidates could run for President.

There was some fear on the part of the Constitution’s framers that a huge number of candidates would run, and with a direct, popular vote as determinant for election, it might be possible for a single party to receive more votes than any other candidate while still only receiving a fraction of the overall votes, as each different area of people would vote for a more local candidate. Furthermore, because taking the vote of every single person and then tabulating them all together would take large amounts of time using the technology of the era, a direct popular vote seemed unfeasible.

Thus, when writing the Constitution the framers decided to use an indirect system.   The indirect system of the electoral college, as established in the Constitution, is still, in theory, a system based on a popular vote. Each citizen still gets one vote in the election. But the difference is that no citizen is actually voting for the President directly. Instead, each citizen is voting for an elector, effectively nominating a representative. This representative elector will then actually vote for the President. Each State only gets a certain number of electors based on the population of that State. This ensures that citizens are voting for the President indirectly, as they are voting for an elector who would vote for the same presidential candidate for whom each citizen him or herself would vote.

This system of voting established by the Constitution is still a form of popular vote, as in the end, theoretically, the popular vote of the people will still play the primary, determining role in the actual vote for the President. But this system of voting insulates the vote from the popular sentiment of the people, ensuring that there will be no tyranny of the majority, which was another concern of the Founding Fathers. This can be understood especially well if one were to imagine a popular vote today, as major population centers would have tremendously more power than sparser areas of the country, and thus, the majority might tyrannize the minority.

Furthermore, the indirect voting system established by the Constitution also represents the fact that, while Congressional representatives are voted for through popular vote, the President and Vice President are instead elected as the leaders of a federation of states, and as such, are effectively voted for by each State instead of by the people as a whole.  The system is strongly ingrained in American politics, even though it has been modified from its originally stated form in the Constitution. The system has been considered generally functional, especially as candidates have only twice, in the history of the nation, won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote. In both instances, the popular vote was extremely close.

Article 2 of the Constitution: Keeping the Executive Branch in Check

If Article 1 of the Constitution outlines the powers and functions of Congress, Article 2 details the framework for the country’s executive branch, which comprises the President, Vice President, and Cabinet. Article 2 outlines the selection and role of the President, clarifies their powers and duties, and defines the powers of the Vice President and Cabinet. In this article, we’ll explore Article 2’s content and its role in keeping the executive branch’s power in check.

The Selection and Role of the President

Article 2 sets out the criteria for selecting the President, who must be a natural-born citizen with a minimum age of 35 and a resident of the United States for 14 years. The President is elected through the electoral college system, with each state receiving a certain number of votes based on their population.

The President’s role is to execute and enforce federal laws, administer the country’s foreign policy, and act as the Commander-in-Chief of the military. In addition, the President has the power to veto legislation passed by Congress and to nominate federal judges, ambassadors, and other officials.

Clarifying Presidential Powers and Duties

Article 2 also clarifies the President’s role as the head of the executive branch. The President has the power to execute the country’s laws and act as its guardian. Besides, the President has the power to oversee the country’s foreign policy, including treaties and powers of appointment. However, the President’s power is not absolute, and the Constitution outlines checks and balances to avoid tyranny.

The Powers of the Vice President and Cabinet

Article 2 also defines the role of the Vice President, who serves as the President of the Senate, casting a vote in the event of a tie. The Vice President is also designated as the successor to the Presidency in the event of the President’s death, removal from office, or resignation.

The President’s Cabinet comprises advisors who serve at the President’s pleasure and are responsible for advising and implementing the President’s policies. Each Cabinet member is nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.

Keeping the Power in Check

One of the significant themes that run through Article 2 is the need to prevent the executive branch from accumulating too much power. Checks and balances are placed on Presidential power to prevent their abuse of power. Congress has the power to impeach the President, the Senate has the power to ratify treaties, and the judiciary has the power to declare Presidential actions unconstitutional.

Conclusion

Article 2 of the US Constitution is an essential piece of legislation that creates the framework for America’s executive branch. The article outlines the selection and role of the President, defines their powers and duties, and clarifies the role of the Vice President and Cabinet. However, most importantly, Article 2 puts in the necessary checks, balances, and safeguards to prevent the President from becoming too powerful, thereby ensuring that the Constitution’s values and principles remain protected, now and always.The Second Article of the Constitution sets out the definition and terms of the Executive Branch of Government for the United States of America. The executive branch of any governmental structure is the one most likely to become powerful, thanks to the nature of executive power.

In most countries, when a dictatorship or despotic form of government forms, the despot comes from what was once the executive branch of the government. Indeed, in the British system of the time, a great deal of power was invested in the monarch of Britain, thus empowering the executive branch of that government. The Second Article of the Constitution, then, was an attempt to help define executive powers without letting them overrun the Government.

It was aimed at both establishing the nature and election procedures for the executive branch, while also ensuring that there were some limits to the powers of that executive branch. Article 2 has been expanded and adapted by some Amendments over the years. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, for example, specifically clarified Clause 6 in Section 1 of the Second Article of the Constitution, because of its ill-defined wording.

While Clause 6 would have provided for the Vice President to at least assume the duties of the President if the President were unable to perform them himself, it still remained vague on any number of matters, including whether or not the Vice President would become an Acting President or a full President. The Twenty-Second Amendment was also an adaptation of the Second Article, under which the President could not be elected to the office more than twice. The Twelfth Amendment significantly altered the way in which the electoral procedure for the executive branch actually functioned, thereby superseding that part of the Second Article of the Constitution. These changes to the Second Article have helped to further define and refine the points and purposes of that Second Article, such that no difficulties will arise from the Second Article’s original faulty wording or function.

This is especially important as the Second Article, for all that it is part of an intricate system, the whole of which is important to protect and preserve, deals with the branch of government which, as has been shown through countless historical examples, is the most likely to lead to abuses of power. Ensuring that the Second Article of the Constitution is refined, then, is critical for the stability of the overall country. For example, if the Twenty-Fifth Amendment had never been implemented, then there would not be a clearly defined system for establishing a new Vice President after a Vice Presidential vacancy, and there would be no clearly defined system for a President to either establish himself as unable to fulfill his duties for the time being or for other officers in Government to be able to establish that the President is unable to fulfill his duties for the time being.

The only option would be impeachment, which would not necessarily function in certain situations. While no President has ever been removed from power by the declaration of other officers, the fact remains that without such an Amendment, the Second Article of the Constitution would have had a hole in it that could have caused potential problems at a later point in time. Because the Second Article of the Constitution concerns the Executive Branch, however, it is most critical for that Article to be able to clearly delineate the powers of the Executive Branch in order to prevent abuses of power.

Election of the President and Vice President in the United States

The United States presidential election is one of the most significant global political events, drawing attention from all quarters. The election process to elect the President and Vice President begins years before the election day, and campaigning dominates the media in the lead-up to the election. Understanding the workings of the presidential election is essential to comprehend democracy in the United States. In this article, we’ll explore the voting process, the candidates, and the electoral college that determine who becomes the next President and Vice President.

The Electoral Process

The United States presidential election is a two-step process involving a primary and a general election. The primary elections’ purpose is to select delegates who will represent each state at each party’s national convention. These delegates will cast their vote on behalf of their party in the first round of the presidential election at the national convention.

After the conventions, the presidential candidates will campaign for the general election. The general election is in November of the election year, and it involves vote casting by citizens who meet the qualifications in each state.

The Candidates

Each political party gets to select its presidential candidate through a series of primaries and caucuses held in each state. Once the candidate is selected, they select a running mate or Vice President. The Vice Presidential candidate is usually chosen to balance out the presidential candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in terms of background, experience, party affiliation, and geographical location.

The Electoral College

The President and Vice President are not elected by the popular vote as the electoral college comprised of elected officials from each state votes for the winner. Each state’s number of electoral college votes is based on its population, with a minimum of three per state. Washington D.C also has three votes in the electoral college process.

During the general election, voters in each state cast their vote for their preferred candidates for the President and Vice President. The winner of the popular vote in any given state is awarded all of the state’s electoral college votes. The candidate with the most electoral college votes, i.e., 270 out of 538, wins the presidency.

Challenges in the Electoral Process

The electoral process has several advantages but also includes significant challenges. One of the significant issues is each state’s winner-takes-all system, where the candidate with the majority in one state receives all the state’s electoral votes, which means that a candidate could win the electoral college without winning the popular vote.

Another issue is that the electoral college’s method gives some states significant influence in the outcome of the election while rendering others insignificant, known as “swing states.” This can skew the entire presidential campaign, with these states receiving most of the candidates’ attention while many states are often overlooked.

Conclusion

The United States presidential election process is a complex and intricate affair. The multi-phase process strives to balance popular vote and state representation in the selection of the President and the Vice President. While the electoral process still has its challenges, it remains a pillar of American democracy, representing a unique concept in the power, limitations, and operations of the elected executive branch of government.

The election of the President and the Vice President is established in Article 2 of the Constitution. The procedure is further honed by a number of Federal and State laws concerning the operation of the election, especially in terms of the means of casting ballots and how those ballots are counted. The system has fundamentally changed only somewhat since its original creation with Article 2 of the Constitution, though of course, the specific nature of each election has changed greatly as technology advanced. To elect the President and the Vice President, the system employs the Electoral College. The electors in the Electoral College cast votes directly for the President and the Vice President. Whichever candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, meaning over half of all the possible votes of the electors, wins the election. The electors are, themselves, elected by each State.

The exact method for electing electors is determined by each State Legislature and not by the Federal Government. This means that the popular election for President and Vice President on Election Day is not actually an election directly for the President or the Vice President. The number of electors that each state may appoint is determined by adding the number of Senators that the State has to the number of Representatives of the State. No one holding a public office, such as a Senator or a Representative, can be an elector.

The Electoral College system has changed somewhat as a result of the Twelfth Amendment, which adjusts the methods by which a President and Vice President are elected. In the original form of the Constitution, the Vice President would be the Presidential candidate who received the second most number of votes. Furthermore, this meant that electors were only voting for President, and never for President and Vice President separately. This led to a somewhat dysfunctional system, as Vice Presidents and Presidents might be at odds with each other and there was the potential for a supposed Vice Presidential candidate to be elected President. Thus, the Twelfth Amendment altered the system such that each elector casts one vote for President and one vote for Vice President.

If the Electoral College votes in such a way that no candidate receives an absolute majority of the votes, then the vote would go to the House of Representatives, which would hold its own vote for the President. This was part of the reason for the original implementation of the Twelfth Amendment, as the House vote resulted in an entirely different candidate winning than either the popular vote or electoral vote would have indicated in the election of 1800.

To run for President, a candidate must have been a natural born citizen of the United States and must still be a citizen at the time he or she is running.Furthermore, the candidate must be thirty five years old at least, and must have been a resident in the United States for fourteen years. The same criteria apply to the Vice-President.