The US Electoral College

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Mr Zero
Speaking as a dumb European I find the American idea of democracy to be a little confusing. Discounting for a moment the irony that Americas national sport of late is exporting democracy at the end of a gun - I'd like to lay out what I understand of how "democracy" works in the USA and ask that anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

So - your US President isn't directly elected by the people, he's elected by the Electoral College (EC) - a body made up of just over 500 people. Each state has one EC member for each of its senators and representatives - the bigger the population of the state, the more representatives it has, thus the more EC members it has. So some states like California have 55 EC votes - and some smaller ones have just 3-4.

The rules are that the winner of the popular vote in a state gets all the EC votes for that state - doesn't matter if you are a republican or a democrat or an independent (yes you had one in the house at last count) irrespective of whether it's your party or the other guys wins the popular vote in your state you are expected (tho not bound to in all states) to had over all the EC vote "points" in accordance with the result.

Your system goes back to the time the constitution was drawn up - and arranged that way because the smaller states were worried that a direct popular vote would favour the bigger states (ie democracy) that the EC would be made up of "the great and the good" and would therefore make a better decision than the little people would (using democracy). Perhaps most importantly - the Southern states preferred the College system because when you were deciding a states EC status - even tho Slaves had no vote they counted as part of the population and garnered the state extra votes under the EC system.

So - what this seems to mean is that some states are one party strongholds - and since all the EC votes go to the winner any incentive to vote is lost (not to mention the incentive for the people running to campaign there) which effectively disenfranchises vast sections of your society. Worse still - and this is the one that boggles the mind - on two occasions (most recently in 2000) the person with the most votes nationwide (Gore with 48% to Bush on 47%) didn't win the election.

So in a nutshell you have a system where you don't vote for your president, the people you do vote for had over their votes when a presidential election is held - (tho not always legally bound to do so and not always all the votes they have at their disposal, depending on which part of the country you live in) and even then the person who wins isn't always the person with the most votes.

Did I miss anything? Every time I think about this I feel sure I must be missing a step that will make the whole process seem like less of a joke.

Ms Hyde
Don't forget voting is not compulsory!

I found it interesting (a little confusing) when the radio announcer was trying to explain how the American President is elected. And he went onto show why certain states like Florida and Ohio etc were important etc, etc.

BackFire
Yeah, you're right. Generally the Electoral College votes and the popular vote go hand in hand, but like the last election showed, that's not always the case. I don't really like the process myself, I don't know why they don't just go soley by the popular vote. But whatever.

Mr Zero
Ohio indeed...

Storm
And the counting of the votes in Ohio has been interrupted.

JediHDM
the process is not a joke. I, a republican and therefore in favor of smaller national government and stronger state government, like the idea of the electoral college. It puts the power in the states, and ensures that the same party is not elected every election, though the disparity in population and saliency.

ash007
well anyway Bush has won now wink

Ms Hyde
^ Is that because you want Hillary Clinton to be the next president? stick out tongue

Mr Zero
you do understand that it's a skewed process tho - right? You know you don't live in a democracy?

Agent Elrond
I liev in NY. Bush and Kerry have NEVER been here. Why? It's a waster if time and money. NY is a democratic state. It's been that way from the past really long time. Kerry knows he won it, so he didn't need to come here. Bush knew he lost it, so there was no need to waste his time here. The same thing can be said about CA, and 40 other states. What it comes down to is the "swing states". Bush can Kerry have visited those states many, many times while the rest if the country has never seen them. Some states (2, I think) split the EC vote. I think the EC is an old system should be done away. 4 elections have been decided by the EC.

Ushgarak
We don't directly vote for our leader in the UK either. We vote for representatives, representatives choose parties, and parties choose their leaders, a process they follow with no consultation with the public at all. Thatcher was brought down not by popular vote but by her own party wanting her changed. It has never been any sort of theme in democracy to vote in the head of Government; only for someone to represent you.

The reason the US system works as it does is because it is bottom-up rather than top-down; the States come together to form a Federal Government, as opposed to most European countries where a Government devolves itself into smaller regions.

Hence each State is treated like a different 'country' almost, each declaring for one side or the other. And yes, that means sometimes there is no point trying to shift the vote of that state.

As for the apparent unfairness of how many votes each State gets in the College... that certainly is an issue and I have never been able to work it out.

Gregory
The Electral College exists because our Founding Fathers thought the general public was too stupid to elect their own President. In light of this, I've never understood how so many people could still support it.

Ushgarak
Hmm... indeed, I cannot think of anmy reason why some effort should not be made to switch to some sort of constituency system in the States.

Jedi Priestess
I agree. THis whole Electoral College is silly. My vote has never counted in Kansas primarily because KS is a republican state and if you are voting democratic you are screwed. messed Why is it that we cant just count to votes of the people?

RaventheOnly
The reason there is a electroal college is to consolidate the postions of the two party system. An its easier to campaign in states where you know you have a chance. roll eyes (sarcastic) its really stupid and out dated. And last, this was concieved of when our country was created.... there were no computers and everything was by hand.... a very slow process.... and if you get a majority in a state you just decalre the winner and send your horsemen to the next county to report your findings. If you didn't notice, the US is rather large.

Alpha Centauri
"Why is it that we cant just count to votes of the people?"

Coz the people don't matter, essentially. As sad as it is.

-AC

Turbo-Cajun
You are not entirely correct.

Both the state of Maine and the state of Nebraska have it set up for a proportional split of the electoral votes. Colorado voted on whether or not they wanted a proportional vote on this years ballot, but I could not find whether it had passed or not.

Mr Zero
yanno I learned that it was Maine and Nebraska that bucked the trend from the beebeecee just after posting! Thankee!

Turbo-Cajun
No problem...

And yeah the EC is ****ed up, and out dated...

Silver Stardust
The electoral college, to be perfectly blunt, sucks ass. It really does make it so that if you don't live in a swing state, it doesn't matter if you vote or not. I live in Illinois, which is a given state -- it always goes Democratic. I voted for Kerry, but really it didn't matter if I did or not, he still would have won my state. And good luck if you want to vote Republican here...

"As for the apparent unfairness of how many votes each State gets in the College... that certainly is an issue and I have never been able to work it out."

The EC is set up so each state has the same number of votes as they have seats in the House and Senate. There's 435 people in Congress, and 438 in the EC. Since each state has 2 Senators and at least 1 Rep, they have at least 3 votes in the EC, and DC also has three votes in the EC. But this is really kinda unfair to the larger states; as has been demonstrated in the 2000 election, a candidate can lose the popular vote and still win the election, because of the EC, by sweeping the smaller states. It's an old and outdated system that I think needs to be done away with.

Ushgarak
My point, SS, is that the proportional vote size of the EC seems badly related to the number of people eligible to vote in it, and that is poor quality franchise.

Arachnoidfreak
Way to smack the shit out of that. 100% correct.

The EC blows chunks of ass and paper. It shouldn't exist anymore.

Silver Stardust
Ush -- exactly, that's the main reason why I don't like it.

Arachnoidfreak -- I had government class during the last half the school year last year, so this is all still fresh in my mind. Good thing, too.

Ushgarak
... and so my question was about me not understanding WHY that is. Understanding the theory you posted, why has it worked out that the proportions of people to votes are so at odds?

Silver Stardust
Something about equal representaion, they want it to be fair for everyone *shrugs* though how it's fair is beyond me, honestly...and I live in this country...

Ushgarak
Err... can you explain the theory of how making the votes DISproportionatee to the population creates equal representation?

I am sure that cannot be right; that's just saying red is blue, and that cannot have been intentional for that reason.

Silver Stardust
I've got no idea how they came to this conclusion. I think it was something along the lines that if they didn't do it this way, and it WAS purely proportional to population, the states with larger populations would completely dominate the states with smaller populations. But since the EC is set up the way it is, the exact opposite is true; states with smaller populations can totally dominate the states with larger populations.

Ushgarak
The more alarming bit is that states with near EQUAL populations seem to have significantly differing EC votes.

Creechuur
"You know you don't live in a democracy?"

Youre absolutely right, for once. America is not a democracy. Its a Democratic Republic. Basically, we all get a say, but then our chosen representatives are supposed to act for our interests based on what we say.

The real problem is that most politicians (of ANY party) worry more about money and political correctness than serving the peoples interests like theyre supposed to.

I may be wrong Ush, but I don't think Electoral numbers are based solely on population but also how dense that population is and what the states economy and imports/exports are and all that.

For instance, Oregon and Washington might have similar populations, but Washington has Microsoft and Starbucks, so they get more Electorla votes because theyre providing more for the economy. Again, I could be completely wrong...

Silver Stardust
ARG my reply just got wiped out, so let's try this again.

I actually just looked up state populations and EC votes to compare, and I found very few instances of that. The biggest difference I spotted was between Illinois and Michigan -- Illinois has about 2.5 million more people and 4 more electoral votes. We actually used to have 22 votes instead of 21, but California stole on of them.

The funny thing about Illinois, is that the state nearly always goes Democratic; like I said, good luck voting here if you're a Republican. But in actuality, it's Chicago that makes the state Democratic. The further you get from Chicago, the more Republicans there are. So I live in a Democratic state that's really not. It's kinda weird.

Silver Stardust
Actually, Washington has nearly twice the population of Oregon.

GABRIEL05
Oregon and Washington are like that.

Silver Stardust
No, not really. Oregon has 3.something million people and 7 votes, while Washington has 6 million people and 11 votes.

(though I don't know what I posted that you're saying they're like that about...I'm assuming it's about population and EC votes)

Arachnoidfreak
I have government right now. Coincidence...? I think so.

GABRIEL05
No I meant as soon as you leave the seattle metro. area, it's all republicans


that was confusing though right?

Silver Stardust
Gotcha.

Silver Stardust
Heh...

I LOVED gov't class. It was really a very cool class. I was interested in politics before I took it, but after being in that class politics just became huge and a really big deal for me.

Arachnoidfreak
I hated politics before Government class. I don't like much more now, but at least I understand it and it's importance.

Silver Stardust
It kinda scares me, though...how so few people in the US know anything about the government and how it works and politics...I mean, I don't know about other states, but in Illinois you can't graduate high school unless you take and pass government. They try to make sure that people are educated about this, and yet there's still so many people who are completely clueless.

Arachnoidfreak
So does New York. Maybe that's why we're democrats? Education rocks.

Darth Surgent
The Electoral College

"Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census)."

Yup. And California is at the top! We have 55

Silver Stardust
Yeah, you guys stole one from us in Illinois...stick out tongue

silver_tears
See I don't see the point to this if your state is decided for who it "votes" for confused
What a waste of time that is stick out tongue

Silver Stardust
In the "decided" states, there really isn't too much a point of voting because it's known how it'll go. Illinois is one of the states that always goes democratic. Which frankly I'm not complaining about stick out tongue but the swing states it IS important that everyone votes, as we've seen a few times.

Yeah, I know that being as I live in Illinois it really doesn't matter that I vote. But I still voted last night, and I'll still continue to vote last night.

silver_tears
But I mean why not use the government class to teach children something important? Like how to clean a fire arm properly stick out tongue

It seems like that will be more useful in the near future anyways embarrasment

Silver Stardust
Oooh, don't even start me on how the ban on assault weapons expired thanks to Bush...mad

RaventheOnly
roll eyes (sarcastic) yes people are slaughtering people in the streets right now roll eyes (sarcastic) and its funny how the first example is realted to an AK when in actuality there is a seperate ban dictating AK and Ozis ban tongue

silver_tears
I would be afraid to be outside after dark blink

RaventheOnly
I come home often walking at 2am ninja from friends houses stick out tongue

silver_tears
Even so stick out tongue

MornGlory
I dont like being inside my house when it is dark- scares me no

RaventheOnly
well even so so tongue

Silver Stardust
Okay, so then explain to me exactly why the f*ck a civilian needs an assault weapon. And do you REALLY need to use three smilies in a 2 sentence post? That's really annoying.

RaventheOnly
I was against the experation of the ban, but really if i want an assault weapon... i can get one easy, for even less then a store would charge me without tax. So really i don't think it mattered either way in the end. Smillies are my choice, and if somehow pictures get in the way then maybe you should really consider how well you are reading my post.

Silver Stardust
They don't get in the way, I can read your posts just fine. But having a smilie every few words gets obnoxious.

RaventheOnly
tongue maybe i like being "obnoxious" shifty would you prefer pictures? eek!

Arachnoidfreak
Stop with the ****ing smilies. Now you're just being an a$$hole. And you wonder why the **** people attack you directly. Stop being a douche, and it wouldn't happen.

RaventheOnly
Dude me aand star play around all the time. no expression

Silver Stardust
Ummm...we do?

RaventheOnly
yea... in the OTF stick out tongue or are you some other silver stardust? or have you forgot miss Matrix?

Silver Stardust
Oh yeah, the OTF...I sorta keep what goes on in there seperate from everything else...

Let's try and get this thread back on topic lest it gets closed, 'kay?

RaventheOnly
O'tay..... so other then the EC is outdated and utterly useless by today's standards... we're pretty much done.

Silver Stardust
Okay, somewhat on topic.

So we're more or less agreed that the EC is outdated...so what do you think should be done to it? Should it be reformed to be more fair and have actual EQUAL representation, or done away with altogether?

RaventheOnly
i say based on actual percentages and numbers of who voted for who. Even though it would take longer to count them and there would be an explosion in the number of people running for the office confused but i think California can teach us, even if you have 250+ wackos its still comes down to only two crazies stick out tongue

Cipher
Doesn't it seem like we could just eliminate the middle man and have a direct election? If, somehow, the vote split 50-50 the Senate would still be there to play favorites.


I feel we have the Electoral College because the founders of our country didn't really trust the average person. Of course, most Americans are better educated now.

Silver Stardust
That is why we have the EC, actually.

Cipher
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to state it as a suggestion becauser I wasn't sure of the reaction I might get when saying the founding fathers didn't really believe all the things they wrote.....

Silver Stardust
Makes sense...but yeah, the founding fathers didn't think the average American was smart enough to directly pick their leaders. Sadly enough, over 200 years later, they're still right erm

Cipher
laughing


Not much faith in the electorate, huh? Still, I'd prefer direct election.....

Silver Stardust
Well, think of it this way: Look at how dumb the average person is. Then realize that by definition, half the people are stupider erm

I'd still prefer direct elections, too, or at least some serious changes to the EC so that it's actually proportionate to population instead of it just pretending to be.

zinh
I dont care for the EC for this reason. In simple population:electoral vote ratio nothing makes sence. It would make your vote count at least if they tried to make it more for population total at least.

*just found these population number on a random website



California has around 35 million population and 55 electoral votes
Wyoming has around .5 million population and 3 electoral votes.

If this is taken by population alone then by the ratio of 3 per .5 mill like in Wyoming then California would have about 210 electoral votes - 2 for senators( since they are included) which would equal 208 total EC votes. (check my math please im drinking)

When you break it down one person in Wyoming can influence more there than one person in California. Doesn't seem very Democratic. A vote by total population would be the best way.

Btw, I was born and raised a union blue collar Democrat in the state of Wyoming(yeah its freeking amazing!). But I now live in Las Vegas, Nevada...another F'd up battleground heheh.

Oh yeah, and please anyone on the right side...do NOT put the liberal stamp on everyone that voted left...that is crazy AM talk radio garbage talk. Not all Democrats are tree huggers just like not all Republicans are bible thumpers.

Ms Hyde
A democratic electoral system can be said to be one where:

- elections are regular and fair
- votes are of equal value
- the will of the majority is achieved
- the interests of minorities are taken into consideration
- there is a high level of participation by the electorate
- there is the maximum possible franchise
- voting is accessible

This was from Features Of A Democratic Electoral System (auspol.com)

zinh
- votes are of equal value
Nope like i said before.

- the will of the majority is achieved
Not alway true huh stick out tongue

- voting is accessible
Also not always true but way better this time heheh

Mr Zero
Just like all liberals are not tree huggers.

Another thing I dont understand about the USA political viewpoint is how "liberal" has replaced "communist" as the worst thing you can call someone.

Ushgarak
The interests of minorities has nothing to do with the voting system, that is just sloppy. It is a factor of just and fair rule.

Some research of my own has thrown up the idea that another reason the founders directly rejected popular vote was that they feared such a mandate could make a President too powerful- the American system is designed so that everything is always balanced, though frankly that is a little odd, as it is an artificial adjustment to democratic will.

I also understand that Southern states favoured the EC system as it made their vote more powerful- blacks got no vote but still contributed (at 3/5ths a piece) towards the population size of that State.

So anyway, it seems the population/vote proportion is out of whack only amongst the smaller sttaes... interesting.

Mr Zero
I've heard that before somewhere - oh yeah - in my first post

finti
yeah why bother repeating a statement

Darth Surgent
Yeah, why bother?

Mr Zero
took me a second or so... pretty damn funny.

Ushgarak
So you did; my apologies.

Ms Hyde
Why sloppy?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.