Can someone please explain the Electoral College

[Guest cpac]

Why is our country still based on an electoral college and not on popular vote?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It's to force the candidates to campaign all over the country. It prevents two or three states from deciding every election. It's also a tool to prevent fraud. You may get a state by ballot stuffing but more often than not you won't steal an election doing that.

[The Czech Republic]

Because smaller states don't get quite as screwed over this way.

[Guest CronoT]

Well, it's mostly a "good old boys" format. The Electoral College was originally formed back in the late 1700's, because the Founding Fathers believed that the common person wasn't informed or educated enough to make a good decision about national level politics. Thus, the Electoral College was decreed to be educated enough to make the decision.

 

It's pretty much a good idea that has outlived it's usefulness, and has pretty much become corrupt.

[JoeDirt]

Also it helps in case of a recount. Imagine the 2000 election if every single vote in the country had to be recounted.

 

But, being originally from North Dakota, I know what it's like to not have your vote matter at all in the election.

[Guest MikeSC]

It also limits the possibility of corruption. Big cities could EASILY sway the election towards a candidate or the other.

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic]

I think you can really tell which way someone leans now more than ever based on their opinion on the Electoral College.

[Slayer]

So that we're not " The United States of NYC and LA"

[GreatWhiteNope]

If a candidate loses tonight but has the majority of popular votes (like in 2000) the system will be under heavy scrutiny.

 

Not only by the US, but around the world.

[Guest CronoT]

Also it helps in case of a recount. Imagine the 2000 election if every single vote in the country had to be recounted.

 

But, being originally from North Dakota, I know what it's like to not have your vote matter at all in the election.

I'm glad someone else understands how I feel. If you're confused, check the thread I started about 30 minutes ago.

[The Czech Republic]

If a candidate loses tonight but has the majority of popular votes (like in 2000) the system will be under heavy scrutiny.

 

Not only by the US, but around the world.

Uh oh, France thinks our government is of questionable veracity!

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Also it helps in case of a recount. Imagine the 2000 election if every single vote in the country had to be recounted.

 

But, being originally from North Dakota, I know what it's like to not have your vote matter at all in the election.

I'm glad someone else understands how I feel. If you're confused, check the thread I started about 30 minutes ago.

Oh well, it does suck but it's better than having New York and California dictating everything to the rest of the country.

[Slayer]

If you're confused, check the thread I started about 30 minutes ago.

Better yet, ignore that politically angsty thread altogether

[AndrewTS]

I'm sure somebody else will be glad to give CronoT the flaming he deserves...

 

While he is correct on the historical origin, Mad Dog and Czech hit on why it is still being used. States with smaller populations and differing regional interests still get a significant voice, although they actually get few electoral votes.

 

Every state is guaranteed at least 3. You get one for each member of Congress the state has (2 senators, one representative).

 

Naturally, if you're a hardcore Democrat, you perhaps want to abolish the Electoral College, because then your candidate only needs to win a few large states to be elected.

 

The downside is that the electoral votes are not divided proportionately (i.e., if a state had 10 electoral votes, and the major candidates went 60-40, the winning candidate gets all the votes, and not just 6 of them).

 

There have been proposals to reform the electoral college, such as the proportional representation (controversial), and getting rid of the electors (which makes perfect sense, as they're completely unnecessary. We *actually* vote for the electors who vote for...well, as you can see, they're basically just middlemen).

 

Before the two-party system took hold, the 2nd place candidate would be VP. You wouldn't have a "running mate" who would be VP if elected.

 

More info on the College:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/

 

"Ultimately, the states elect the President of the United States. The highest popularly elected official in the United States is the state governor, not the president. Any change toward a popular voting system undermines the states, and the very basis for the Federal system."

 

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/

 

In a smaller nation with less politically-diverse interests, a popular vote would be ok, but that isn't the case.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'm fine with going proportional for the electorial college but I DO NOT want the popular vote alone to decide elections.

[2GOLD]

Why not just make the popular vote worth something then? Like 10 votes or something?

 

That way the college doesn't get abandoned and the Popular vote now would mean something in an election.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

Then you basically are still making NYC and LA more important.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

The electrocal college is here to stay, regardless of its faults. The EC is there to make sure every state gets a chance to elect a President, and not the states which have populations of multiple states combined. It is an assurance that candidates don't focus on just a few states, even though the South is a lost cause for the Dems. But, it can be a bummer when one gets wins the popular and still not win the election. But, such is life sometimes which is why I want the winner to win both to avoid the hassel of 2000.

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The downside is that the electoral votes are not divided proportionately (i.e., if a state had 10 electoral votes, and the major candidates went 60-40, the winning candidate gets all the votes, and not just 6 of them).

No one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me why this is so... The way that the process should work (at least, in theory), this being a representative republic and all, is that each electorate should vote in accordance with whatever the popular vote is in their respective electoral districts. And each electoral vote should stand on its own; a state shouldn't award all of it's allocated electoral votes to whomever wins the overall popular vote for that state.

 

For example, since Colorado has nine electoral votes, if five districts vote for Kerry, and the other four vote for Bush, that probably means that Kerry won the overall popular vote, but that shouldn't mean that Colorado automatically awards all nine to Kerry.

[2GOLD]

The Popular vote has been wrong what was it? Four times in our history?

Four god damn times?!?!

 

That's a damn good percentage that keeps people in the loop.

[Guest MikeSC]

The downside is that the electoral votes are not divided proportionately (i.e., if a state had 10 electoral votes, and the major candidates went 60-40, the winning candidate gets all the votes, and not just 6 of them).

No one has ever been able to satisfactorily explain to me why this is so... The way that the process should work (at least, in theory), this being a representative republic and all, is that each electorate should vote in accordance with whatever the popular vote is in their respective electoral districts. And each electoral vote should stand on its own; a state shouldn't award all of it's allocated electoral votes to whomever wins the overall popular vote for that state.

 

For example, since Colorado has nine electoral votes, if five districts vote for Kerry, and the other four vote for Bush, that probably means that Kerry won the overall popular vote, but that shouldn't mean that Colorado automatically awards all nine to Kerry.

It makes the small states utterly useless. Using CO as an example, the odds of anybody getting more than a gain of 1 vote from them is not even remotely worth all of the effort.

-=Mike

[teke184]

The only way that the EC should be changed is if someone wants to change the allocation of votes to follow the *Maine* and *Nebraska* methods and not the *Colorado* methods.

 

 

Maine and Nebraska let each Congressional District count as an Electoral Vote then give the popular-vote winner in the state the two Senate Electoral Votes.

 

Example- If Louisiana has 2 Dem districts and 5 Republican districts, 7 of the 9 votes would be split 5-2 in favor of the Republicans then the popular vote winner would pick up the two Senate votes.

 

 

Considering that one of the Congressional district makes up most of the city of New Orleans, the Dems would still have a chance at the popular vote even if they don't win a majority of the Congressional Districts.

[AndrewTS]

Teke: I completely forgot about Maine and Nebraska. So yeah, there is some proportional representation in some states with electoral votes.

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It makes the small states utterly useless. Using CO as an example, the odds of anybody getting more than a gain of 1 vote from them is not even remotely worth all of the effort.

-=Mike

But that would be balanced out by the fact that high population density states would not be able to dedicate all of their votes to one candidate; California being forced to divide it's fifty-four electoral votes (or however many it has) would be more significant than Colorado being forced to divide its nine.

[Guest BDC]

Please remind me because I've forgotten, how was CO's amendment worded?

[Guest TDinDC1112]

Can't go on popular vote and this is why:

 

Over time, more parties and candidates will develop (which sounds good, right?). So let's say in 20 years, you have 5 strong candidates for president, and the winner gets 32% of the popular vote (because now we're splitting up the votes 5 ways). So now we have a president who only 32% of the country voted for. That's not good.

[Stephen Joseph]

This might help

 

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf