The US Electoral College

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Ms Hyde
certain states like Florida and Ohio etc were important etc, etc.

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

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.

well anyway Bush has won now 😉

^ Is that because you want Hillary Clinton to be the next president? 😛

Originally posted by JediHDM
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 😖 Why is it that we cant just count to votes of the people?

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

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. 🙄 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.

"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

Originally posted by 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.

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.

Originally posted by 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.

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

No problem...

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

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.