 When the framers of a constitution had to decide how the nation's president should be elected, it led to a great deal of debate. They did not believe a popular vote of the entire nation would be an effective system because at that time information was too hard to disseminate to the entire country. They did not want Congress to directly elect the president because that would put too much power in the hands of the federal government. And they believed elections held in each state assembly would just result in each state nominating a favorite son. All of these concerns eventually led to the electoral college system. The people are not qualified to exercise themselves in the executive department, but they are qualified to name the person who shall exercise it. With us, therefore, they choose this officer every four years. Thomas Jefferson, 1789. The Constitution designates that a group of representatives or electors from each state and the District of Columbia shall assemble every four years to elect the president. The number of electors from each state is equal to the number of senators and representatives from each state, and they are supposed to vote according to the will of their constituents. Originally, the Constitution required each elector to vote for two separate candidates. The candidate with the highest vote would be elected president, and the second highest vote-getter would be vice president. With the 12th Amendment ratified in 1804, this part of the electoral system was changed. The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for president and vice president, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. They shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice president, which lists they shall sign and certify and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the Senate. 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution All but two states use what is called a winner-take-all system. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in the state is awarded all its electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska are the only states that split their votes based on candidate statewide performance. The electors meet in their respective state capitals approximately six weeks after the popular vote to officially cast their electoral votes. There are 538 total electoral votes, so a winning candidate must receive at least 270 votes. If no candidate receives 270, the House of Representatives determines the winner, with each state's House delegation casting one vote. This has happened only twice, in the elections of 1800 and 1824. The election of 2000 is one that brought much criticism of the electoral college system. Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote, but Republican George W. Bush won the electoral vote, leaving many Americans feeling the electoral college usurped the will of the people. Another criticism of the electoral college system is that the large states have too much influence, and people of small states often feel ignored since campaigns generally focus on the larger states. It can also affect voter turnout in states that have a dominant political party. If a state has mostly Republican voters, people who want to vote for the Democratic candidate may not vote because they believe their votes will have no effect. Though it has its issues, the electoral college provides some unique benefits as well. Because there are fewer than 500 votes, it is relatively easy to determine a winner, even in close elections. Despite the events surrounding the 2000 elections, recounts and disputed elections are rare. And it maintains a two-party system. If the election was determined by a popular vote, there would likely be several candidates. With this situation, the winner would be unlikely to receive more than half of all votes. Thus the president would hardly be one that could claim his election was a mandate from the people. When political parties choose the candidate they want to represent them in the presidential elections, the process is done through a series of primary elections and caucuses. Primaries are the most common method of selecting presidential candidates. In each state that holds a primary, voters directly cast their ballot for a candidate. There are three types of primaries, open, closed, and blanket. In open primaries, voters can cast ballots for a candidate from any political party. In closed primaries, voters may only vote for candidates representing the political party with which the voter is registered. In blanket primaries, candidates from both parties are listed together on a single ballot. Though primaries are more common, some states use caucuses, where selected members of a political party represent the voter's will. Though only 12 states now hold caucuses, every state used them until the early 20th century, when corruption wrought by political machines led to the new primary systems. During election years, the first tests for the presidential hopefuls are the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, which are held in late January or early February. These are often regarded as make or break tests for the candidates. Those that do well in these two states usually gain momentum and get a boost in campaign support. Many critics believe that the voters and concerns of these two smaller states are not representative of all of America, and that they play too much of a role in the election process. Critics also believe the elections suffer because many viable candidates withdraw after faring poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire. The second major test on the campaign trail is known as Super Tuesday, which is the second Tuesday in March. Many states hold primaries on this day, and generally, the clear favorite comes to the front as a result. After Super Tuesday, the trailing candidates typically withdraw from the race. Because of these circumstances, there have been many criticisms of the primary and caucus systems. The early timing of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary extends the length of the campaign, forcing candidates to raise even larger sums of funding. Voters tend to lose interest over the long campaign, and in states with late primaries, many voters believe their vote is meaningless because the winning candidate has already been singled out. Despite these issues, the campaigns go on. A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in. H. L. Minkin. The political campaigns shift into high gear after each party holds its national convention in July or August. The conventions are held for two reasons, to establish a party platform and candidate selection. A party platform is the set of directions, values and tenets the party believes in, and intends to promote during the remainder of the campaign. The goal of the platform is to create unity among the different factions of the party, in addition to establishing its agenda and goals. Candidate selection is the official nomination of the party's presidential and vice presidential candidates. A vote is taken among the delegates from each state, which cast a vote for the candidate selected in their state's primary or caucus. If this vote does not produce a consensus winner, a second vote is taken in which delegates are allowed to vote for any candidate. However, due to the primary and caucus system producing a clear frontrunner, the candidate selection process has become a mere formality, and is viewed as a nominee coronation. This has sapped much of the excitement from the conventions. The legions of reporters who cover politics don't want to quit the clash in the thunder of electoral combat for the dry duty of analyzing the federal budget. As a consequence, we have created the perpetual presidential campaign. USIDI, 1984. After the national conventions, the party candidates are ready to face off in the final stage of the presidential election process, the general elections. The day the ballots are cast is the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. But before this day comes, a great deal of debate, maneuvering, posturing and posing takes place, a process that puts the candidates under an intense microscope. A debate before 70 million people is in fact a distorting glass, a front house mirror in which wrinkles look like canyons, and hesitation like an attack of amnesia. Peter Goldman, 1984. Most elections feature an incumbent or the current president running against a challenger. Both of these positions have unique advantages and disadvantages. Incumbent presidents enjoy the benefit of free press coverage of their speeches and appearances simply because they are the president. They also have the advantage of acting presidential at national and international conferences and meetings to present themselves as confident and capable. They can improve their image through crisis management when confronting and resolving problems. Presidents also enjoy the benefit of credit claiming when they get credit for positive events they may or may not have influenced. However, incumbent presidents also must endure a set of challenges. Presidents are usually given the credit or blame for the economy, so if the economy goes into downturn prior to the election, it can send voters to the challenger's camp. Presidents also have to endure policy criticism. Their policies are in the headlines every day and receive a great deal of scrutiny, which can adversely affect a campaign. Also, a president's approval rating typically decreases over the course of his term in office, robbing momentum from a campaign. Presidential challengers have the advantage of being able to attack the president's policy decisions, using the leader's decisions and actions against him. Challengers can also promote their own political record, which is generally not as well known as the president's. There is also a great deal of momentum from the primaries and caucuses that can fuel a challenger's surge in the polls. Because the incumbent president generally runs unopposed, he gets little media coverage while the challenger is benefiting from extensive media exposure in the true primary race. Challengers often can use the claim of being a Washington outsider, in order to gain favor with Americans who have distrust for the federal government. This position has worked well for governors such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. While they enjoy these advantages, challengers face three distinct disadvantages. One is money. It is more difficult for challengers to raise campaign funds because they are less well known, and many potential donors are reluctant to give to an uncertain campaign. They also have usually not had a stage on which to display their presidential material. They have not been able to prove to voters whether they can succeed at a national and international level. Regionalism also has a bearing on challengers' campaigns. Because they are often closely identified with the state or region they come from, many voters from a different region are unwilling to vote for them. Regionalism is why many candidates choose a vice presidential running mate from a different region, in order to appeal to a more diverse group of voters. Another factor that affects both candidates from the two main parties is the presence of a popular third party candidate. Though there has never been a third party candidate win the general election, there have been many who have swayed enough votes to influence the outcome of the election.