Counting Electoral Votes

Joseph M. Bessette and Gary J. Schmitt have a report at AEI titled Counting Electoral Votes: How the Constitution Empowers Congress—and Not the Vice President—to Resolve Electoral Disputes

Key Points

• The vice president does not have “plenary” authority under the Constitution to settle disputes over Electoral College votes.
• Analysis of the Constitution’s history, text, and underlying principles, along with early practices, legislation, and debates, affirms that Congress possesses that authority.
• Accordingly, the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, which recognizes congressional authority to resolve electoral disputes and denies the vice president any substantive power in these matters, is fully consonant with constitutional theory and practice.

The  concluding paragraphs:

Key principles of the American constitutionalorder strongly contradict the notion that the framers vested in the vice president the unilateral authority to resolve Electoral College disputes: (1) the framers’ understanding of responsible, or accountable, republican government; (2) checks and balances in the constitutional structure; (3) Madison’s principle that “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity” and (4) the rule of law. 

The framers may rightly be criticized for, apparently, not having considered the problem of contested electoral votes when they designed their fairly intricate system of presidential elections. Fortunately, the document they crafted fully empowers Congress to devise procedures for resolving such controversies.

"The office is more important than any individual person."

 This Week interview with Asa Hutchinson:

KARL: You suggested recently that if Trump were to get indicted that he should drop out of the race. Do you believe that now that he's been indicted, should he drop out? 

HUTCHINSON: Well, I do. And for a couple reasons. I mean, first of all, the office is more important than any individual person. And so for the sake of the office of the presidency, I do think that’s too much of a sideshow and distraction, and he needs to be able to concentrate on his due process, and there is a presumption of innocence. 

But the second reason is, throughout my eight years as governor and as a political leader, I've always said that people don't have to step aside from public office if they’re under investigation, but if it reaches the point of criminal charges that have to be answered, the office is always more important than a person. And so there's some consistency there. I do believe if -- if we're looking at the presidency and the future of our country, then we don't need that distraction and he needs to be able to concentrate on the legal issues that he faces.

Mortality and Contingent Election

I am going to re-up this April 2020 piece I wrote for the @thedispatch about the "dead nominee" problem, which Congress should have addressed long ago. Because we might in 2024 have an octogenarian vs. septuagenarian presidential contest. https://t.co/s1JaWQYZnx

— Kevin R Kosar (@kevinrkosar) November 11, 2022

Congress presently lacks a procedure to handle the death or disability of a presidential or vice presidential candidate during a contingent election. Come November, Trump will be 74 and Biden will turn 78, and will have endured a long, hard campaign. Whoever wins will be the oldest person ever elected president. If one of them or their running mates cannot serve, there are no agreed upon rules to provide a substitute candidate. Congress would be without a map for proceeding, and the selection of the president delayed for months.

Americans Want to Scrap the Electoral College

Rebecca Salzer and Jocelyn Kiley  at Pew:

Around six-in-ten U.S. adults (63%) say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency, while 35% favor keeping the current Electoral College system, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted June 27-July 4, 2022. There has been a modest increase in the share of Americans who favor changing the way presidents are elected: In January 2021, the last time the Center asked this question, 55% said the system should be changed, while 43% supported maintaining the existing system.

The current electoral system in the United States allows for the possibility that the winner of the popular vote may not be able to secure enough Electoral College votes to win the presidency. This was the case in both the 2000 and 2016 elections, which were won by George W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively.

Lincoln 1864

In her statement Thursday night, Liz Cheney mentioned that, before 2020, presidents had always been willing to accept electoral defeat.  She cited the example of Lincoln.

 Abraham Lincoln, Memorandum on Probable Failure of Re-Election1, August 23, 1864

1 A summer of costly military stalemate and widespread disaffection among War Democrats and conservative Republicans with the administration's policies toward slavery persuaded Lincoln that he would probably be defeated in the 1864 presidential election. Perhaps to bear witness to his determination to save the Union even if defeated, he wrote out this memorandum, indicating his fear that General McClellan, if elected, would be forced by members of his party to seek an armistice with the Confederacy. Such an armistice could be tantamount to recognition of Confederate independence. Lincoln's memorandum, which he asked the members of his cabinet to sign as witnesses without reading, amounts to a pledge to work in concert with McClellan before the latter's inauguration.

Executive Mansion

Washington, Aug 23, 1864.

This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.

A. Lincoln

[Endorsed on Reverse:]

• William H Seward
• W. P. Fessenden
• Edwin M Stanton
• Gideon Welles
• Edwd. Bates
• M Blair
• J. P. Usher

August 23. 1864.2

2 The date is in Lincoln's hand.

The 2020 Election

Nathaniel PersilyCharles Stewart III have an article at The Journal of Democracy titled " The Miracle and Tragedy of the 2020 U.S. Election."

The abstract:

The 2020 election was both a miracle and a tragedy. In the midst of a pandemic posing unprecedented challenges, local and state administrators pulled off a safe, secure, and professional election. This article discusses metrics of success in the adaptations that took place—record-high turnout, widespread voter satisfaction, a doubling of mail voting without a concomitant increase in problems often associated with absentee ballots, and the recruitment of hundreds of thousands of new poll workers. However, a competing narrative of a “stolen election” led to a historically deep chasm between partisans in their trust of the election process and outcome.

Nixon Announces that JFK Has Won

On January 6, 1961, after the official counting of the electoral votes in a joint session of Congress, Vice President Richard Nixon announced the election of his 1960 opponent, John F. Kennedy.

Mr. Speaker,  since this is an unprecedented situation,  I would like to ask permission to impose upon the time of the Members of this Congress to make a statement which in itself is somewhat unprecedented.

I promise to be brief. I shall be guided by the 1-minute rule of the House rather than the unlimited time rule that prevails in the Senate.

This is the first time in 100 years that a candidate for the Presidency announced the result of an election in which he was defeated and announced the victory of his opponent. I do not think we could have a more striking and eloquent example of the stability of our constitutional system and of the proud tradition. of the American people of developing, respecting, and honoring institutions of self-government. 

In our campaigns, no matter how hard fought they may be, no matter how close the election may turn out to be, those who lose accept the verdict, and support those who win. And I would like to add that, having served now in Government for 14 years, a period which began in the House just 14 years ago, almost to the day, which continued with 2 years in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President, as I complete that 14-year period it is indeed a very great honor to me to extend to my colleagues in the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle who have been elected; to extend to John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who have been elected President and Vice President of the United States, my heartfelt best wishes, as all of you work in a cause that is bigger than any man's ambition, greater than any party. It is the cause of freedom, of justice, and peace for all mankind.

It is in that spirit that I now declare that John F. Kennedy has been elected President of the United States, and Lyndon B. Johnson Vice President of the United States.

Members of the Congress, the purpose for which the joint session of the two Houses of Congress has been called pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1, having been accomplished, the Chair declares the joint session dissolved.

Electoral Vote: What Happens Today

 From CRS:

December 14, 2020: Electors Vote in Their States Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years is set (3 U.S.C. §7) as the date on which the electors meet and vote. In 2020, the meeting is on December 14. Electoral college delegations meet separately in their respective states and the District of Columbia at places designated by their state legislature. The electors vote by paper ballot, casting one ballot for President and one for Vice President. The electors count the results and then sign six certificates, each of which contains two lists, one of which includes the electoral votes for the President, the other, electoral votes for the Vice President, each of which includes the names of persons receiving votes and the number of votes cast for them. These are known as Certificates of the Vote, which the electors are required to sign. They then pair the six Certificates of Ascertainment provided by the state governors with the Certificates of the Vote, and sign, seal, and certify them (3 U.S.C. §§8-10). The six certificates are then distributed by registered mail as follows: (1) one certificate to the President of the U.S. Senate (the Vice President); (2) two certificates to the secretary of state (or equivalent officer) of the state in which the electors met; (3) two certificates to the Archivist;  and (4) one certificate to the judge of the U.S. district court of the district in which the electors met (3 U.S.C. §11).

Legislatures Cannot Override the Popular Vote

Some crackpots are floating the idea that state legislatures should ignore the election outcome and select electors on their own.

They cannot do so.

Adav Noti at Just Security:

The Constitution has two main provisions that govern the selection of presidential electors. First, the Constitution says that each state’s legislature has the authority to determine that state’s manner of choosing its electors. Second, the Constitution gives Congress the power to decide when the electors are chosen, which Congress has done by enacting a federal law designating the Tuesday after the first Monday in November — Election Day.

Proponents of the legislative-appointment theory read too much into the first constitutional provision and forget about the second. Although every state has chosen its electors by popular vote for more than a century, most constitutional experts agree that, under the legislature’s authority to choose the “manner” of appointing electors, a legislature could theoretically decide before Election Day to cancel the popular vote for presidential electors and instead appoint them directly. But Congress’s enactment of a uniform national Election Day under its own constitutional authority — which supersedes any contrary state actions — prohibits the choice of electors from being made based on elections held or laws passed after Election Day.

In other words, under the constitutional timing provision as implemented by federal law, the absolute last day a state legislature could have decided to appoint the state’s presidential electors for this election was November 3, 2020. Once that date passed, the determinative popular votes had all been cast, and therefore the legislature’s authority to change the state’s manner of appointing electors in 2020 passed as well.

Virtual Debate, 1960

"I'm Bill Shadel ABC News...The 2 candidates will not be sharing same platform. In NY John F Kennedy. Separated by 3,000 miles in L.A. studio, Richard Nixon. Joined for discussion by network of electronic facilities which permits each candidate to see & hear the other"
10/13/1960 pic.twitter.com/9GottJMbPP

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) October 8, 2020

Americans Want to Abolish the Electoral College

Megan Brenan at Gallup:

Heading into the 2020 presidential election, three in five Americans favor amending the U.S. Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote system, marking a six-percentage point uptick since April 2019. This preference for electing the president based on who receives the most votes nationwide is driven by 89% of Democrats and 68% of independents. Far fewer Republicans, 23%, share this view, as 77% of them support keeping the current system in which the candidate with the most votes in the Electoral College wins the election.

Delay the Election?

Jacob Shelly at the Congressional Research Service:

Similar to its silence about presidential primary elections, the Constitution does not require a general election for President. While Representatives and Senators must be elected “by the People,” the Constitution provides that the President is chosen by electors appointed at the direction of each state’s legislature. Thus, while every state currently chooses its electors through popular election—where votes cast for presidential candidates are counted as votes for the electors pledged to those candidates—a state legislature could decide to select electors itself if it determined elections were infeasible. Indeed, it was common for legislatures to select electors without popular elections until the mid-1800s.

Whatever method a state chooses, the Constitution empowers Congress to set the date by which states must choose their electors. Since 1845, Congress has required states to appoint presidential electors on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, which represents the date by which voters in every state must cast their ballot for President. However, the statute does contemplate that some states may not be able to comply with this deadline. By law, “[w]henever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors,” but fails to “make a choice on the day prescribed by law,” the state legislature may establish the manner for appointing electors on a subsequent date. It is not clear whether Congress intended the same flexibility to occur where a state was unable to hold its scheduled election.

Unlike the practice of some states that allow the Governor to postpone an election during emergencies, neither the Constitution nor Congress provides any similar power to the President or other federal officials to change this date outside of Congress’s regular legislative process. Congress has enacted more than 100 statutes identifying special powers that the President may exercise during a national emergency, but none include the power to postpone or cancel any state’s chosen method of appointing presidential Electors. During previous episodes of war, pandemic, or other deadly crises in American history, the presidential election date has never been changed in response to an emergency.

The Constitution empowers Congress to determine the date the electors will cast their vote for President from their home states. Consistent with that authority, Congress has directed electors to submit their votes on “the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.” Only Congress may change this date by Congressional Research Service 3 enacting a new statute. Anticipating that there may occasionally be delays, federal law instructs officials to send urgent requests to states that have not submitted their electors’ votes by the fourth Wednesday in December.

Congress has provided that the electors’ votes are to be tabulated on the sixth day of January, though occasionally it has chosen other dates in early January. To be elected President, a candidate must receive votes from a majority of the appointed electors. If no candidate receives this majority, whether because the vote is divided among multiple candidates or because a decisive number of electors were not able to submit their votes in time, the Twelfth Amendment requires the contest to be decided by the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote; members from at least two-thirds of the states must participate for there to be a quorum; and a winner must receive votes from a majority of all states.

The Constitution provides that each term for Members of Congress expires on the third day of January. Thus, in the event of a catastrophic emergency that prevented a significant number of states from transmitting the votes of electors and from holding congressional elections, there could be no body on the prescribed day of January 6th to choose the new President. In such a scenario, the duty could fall to the Senate. As a “continuing body,” two-thirds of the Senate’s members remain in office even if elections do not occur in a given year.

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Senate may choose the Vice President-elect. If the House of Representatives is not able to choose a President, then the Vice President-elect assumes that office. Under the Twentieth Amendment, the incumbent President’s term ends at noon on January 20th. There are no provisions of law permitting a President to stay in office after this date, even in the event of a national emergency, short of the ratification of a new constitutional amendment. If none of the other avenues for selecting a new President have been successful, the vacancy would be filled according to the prescribed rules of succession. If there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President. If there is no Speaker, or if the Speaker otherwise fails to qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the Senate shall act as President. 

Goodbye, Faithless Electors

Syllabus: CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON
591 U. S. ____ (2020)
No. 19–465. Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020

Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’  choice—for President. Pp. 8–18. 

(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as  conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27. And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint. A State can require, for example, that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period. Or more substantively, a State can insist (as Ray allowed) that the elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee, thus tracking the State’s popular vote. Or—so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle—a State can add an associated condition of appointment: It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty. Which is to say that the State’s appointment power, barring some outside constraint, enables the enforcement of a pledge like Washington’s.

Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors, and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors’ voting procedures. And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorporated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no language of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution. Contrary to the Electors’ argument, Article II’s use of the term “electors” and the Twelfth Amendment’s requirement that the electors “vote,” and that they do so “by ballot,” do not establish that electors must have discretion. The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words expected the Electors’ votes to reflect their own judgments. But even assuming that outlook was widely shared, it would not be enough. Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page. Pp. 8–13.

(b) “Long settled and established practice” may have “great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions.” The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689. The Electors make an appeal to that kind of practice in asserting their right to independence, but “our whole experience as a Nation” points in the opposite direction. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 557. From the first elections under the Constitution, States sent electors to the College to vote for pre-selected candidates, rather than to use their own judgment. The electors rapidly settled into that non-discretionary role. See Ray, 343 U. S., at 228–229. Ratified at the start of the 19th century, the Twelfth Amendment both acknowledged and facilitated the Electoral College’s emergence as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party-line voting. Courts and commentators throughout that century recognized the presidential electors as merely acting on other people’s preferences.  And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens. Washington’s law is only another in the same vein. It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen. Pp. 13– 17. 193 Wash. 2d 380, 441 P. 3d 807, affirmed.

 KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined as to Part II.

Problems of Contingent Election

In some states, the results of the 2020 presidential election might be in dispute.  And a 269-269 tie is possible, albeit unlikely.  What then?  Under the 12th Amendment, the newly-elected House picks the president -- with each state getting one vote -- and the Senate picks the vice president.

At LegBranch.org, Kevin Kosar describes three problems:

First, Congress, which is recessed until May 4 because of the pandemic, may have difficulty meeting if COVID-19 continues to menace Washington, D.C. Neither chamber presently has in place rules that enable it to vote remotely.

A second problem for Congress is how to handle a deadlocked state legislative vote on which presidential candidate won. If, say, a state has a presidential election that is too close to call (e.g., Florida in 2000) and its legislature cannot decide on a result, then it is not clear what happens. Each legislative chamber could send its own verdict on who won to Congress. But the 1887 Electoral Count Act (ECA) seems to say the state’s governor should choose, but legal scholars say the law is vague, and it is unclear whether Congress would need to abide by the governor’s choice and how Congress should count the submitted votes. If that were not trouble enough, some legal scholars question the constitutionality of the statute, which invites court challenges to any actions Congress takes under it. The Bush v. Gore battle of late 2000 should have spurred Congress to act. But the fight was toxic and resolved by the high court before the problems were fixed.

Third, and morbidly, Congress presently lacks a procedure to handle the death or disability of a presidential or vice presidential candidate during a contingent election.  Come November, Trump will be 74 and Biden will turn 78, and will have endured a long, hard campaign. Whoever wins will be the oldest person ever elected president. If one of them or their running mates cannot serve, there are no agreed upon rules to provide a substitute candidate. Congress would be without a map for proceeding, and the selection of the president delayed for months.

Cancel or Postpone?

Some states have postponed primary elections.

So many people are wondering: could a president remain in power by unilaterally canceling or postponing a general election?

NOPE: the Constitution sets strict expiration dates for terms of office, with no exceptions.

• 20th Amendment: "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

Congress, however, could shift the election date, but only by a few weeks at most, because of the dates above.

• Article II, section 1: "The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."
• Article I, section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Congress could pass a law requiring all states to offer all voters the option of voting by mail.

The Age of Presidential Candidates

Grace Panetta at Business Insider:

[Pete] Buttigieg, 37, Reps. Tulsi Gabbard and Eric Swalwell, 38, and Rep. Seth Moulton, 40, are all attempting to overtake Roosevelt's record as America's youngest president.
...

[Joseph] Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be the oldest presidents in history if elected, hypothetically taking office at ages 71, 78, and 79, respectively.

Karlyn Bowman at Forbes:

In questions asked in recent years, people appear somewhat more comfortable with the idea of a relatively young president than with the idea of a relatively old one. When a 2015 CBS News/New York Times poll asked registered voters what they thought the best age for a president, a plurality (46%) said in their 50s. (Most presidents have been inaugurated in their 50s.) Thirty-six percent chose younger ages (31% said 40s, 5% said 30s), and 10% chose older ages (9% said 60s, 1% said 70s). Eighty-three percent in 2015 NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey said they would be enthusiastic about or comfortable with a presidential candidate under the age of 50, compared to 63% who said they would feel that way about a candidate over the age of 65. In a new 2019 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 58% of registered voters said they would be enthusiastic or comfortable with a candidate under age 40; 37% gave that response about a candidate over age 75.

A recent Economist/YouGov online survey told people that “if elected president in 2020, several candidates would be 80 years or older while president.” Forty percent said this might make it too difficult to do the work the presidency requires, while 34% said age helps candidates to have the experience and wisdom to do a good job. The preface to their next question was “If elected president in 2020, several candidates would begin his or her term before reaching 40 years old.” Forty-two percent said the candidate’s age would help him or her to have fresh ideas to do a good job, while 29% answered that a candidate being under 40 might make him or her too inexperienced to do the work the presidency requires.

Largest Counties, 1988 and 2016

One measure of change in the electorate is the performance of Republican presidential candidates in the 15 largest counties in 1988 and 2016.  On average, GOP performance dropped about 19 percent.

	1988	2016
Los Angeles CA	46.90%	22.40%	-24.50%
Cook IL (Chicago)	43.40%	20.80%	-22.60%
Harris TX (Houston)	57.00%	41.60%	-15.40%
Maricopa AZ (Phoenix)	64.90%	47.70%	-17.20%
San Diego CA	60.20%	36.60%	-23.60%
Orange CA	67.70%	42.30%	-25.40%
Miami Dade FL	55.30%	33.80%	-21.50%
Kings NY (Brooklyn)	32.60%	17.50%	-15.10%
Dallas TX	58.40%	34.30%	-24.10%
Riverside CA	59.50%	44.40%	-15.10%
Queens NY	39.70%	21.80%	-17.90%
Clark NV (Las Vegas)	56.40%	41.70%	-14.70%
King WA (Seattle)	44.80%	21.00%	-23.80%
San Bernardino CA	60.00%	41.50%	-18.50%
Tarrant TX	61.20%	51.70%	-9.50%
			-19.26%

The Magnitude of Bush's Victory

In 1988, George H.W. Bush, the 41st president, got a higher share of the popular and electoral vote than any presidential candidate since then.

                                    Popular %        Electoral Vote

1988    Bush 41           53.4                 426

1992    Clinton, B.       43.0                 370

1996    Clinton, B.       49.2                 379

2000    Bush 43           47.9                 271

2004    Bush 43           50.7                 286

2008    Obama             52.9                 365

2012    Obama             50.9                 332

2016    DJT                  46,0                 304

1988

Lloyd Green at The Guardian:

Looking back, 1988 was a turning point. It would be the last time any presidential candidate broke 400 votes in the electoral college, the last time California, New Jersey and Illinois went red. What was up until then viewed as the Republican lock would give way in four short years.

After that night, no non-incumbent Republican would again lead the popular vote. The Democratic party would capture a plurality in six of the next seven presidential elections. Flyover country would emerge as a contiguous Republican bastion, Democrats relegated mostly to the coasts. Another realignment was under way.

...
 Back in the day, the president’s father was a senator from Connecticut and a golf partner to President Eisenhower. Now, the Nutmeg state’s entire congressional delegation is Democratic. Ned Lamont, governor-elect, played golf at the country club where George met Barbara Bush.

No Republican has carried these states since Bush in 1988:

• California
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Illinois
• Maine
• Maryland
• New Jersey
• Vermont

News Sources in Campaign 2016

Pew reports:

In the coming days, Americans will follow a single event across a variety of media channels: the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. If the public’s media habits during the campaign are any indicator, it is likely that Trump and Hillary Clinton voters will be learning about the inauguration from very different media outlets. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, Americans who say they voted for Trump in the general election relied heavily on Fox News as their main source of election news leading up to the 2016 election, whereas Clinton voters named an array of different sources, with no one source named by more than one-in-five of her supporters. The survey was conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 12, 2016, among 4,183 adults who are members of Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel.

When voters were asked to write in their “main source” for election news, four-in-ten Trump voters named Fox News.1 The next most-common main source among Trump voters, CNN, was named by only 8% of his voters.

Clinton voters, however, did not coalesce around any one source. CNN was named more than any other, but at 18% had nowhere near the dominance that Fox News had among Trump voters. Instead, the choices of Clinton voters were more spread out. MSNBC, Facebook, local television news, NPR, ABC, The New York Times and CBS were all named by between 5% and 9% of her voters.