As a foreigner I dont understand voting in the US

Inglesa por favor

it's english .. in short:
what does a votre mean when the electoral college has the final vote anyway.
Since they don't have to vote the same outcome as the popular vote it all seems like BS

I understood what he said just fine. Somebody asks a legit question about our politcal system and he gets shit? I am guessing that you didn't pay attention in political science class either.


The distant possibility that someone in the electoral college would cast their vote for someone other than who they were appointed to vote for is something that bothers my husband a great deal too. It has happened before but not, to my knowledge in a a very long time.

The system was set up to give the smaller, less populated states, a greater influence (more equal) influence in the voting. From what I understand though, it stemmed from how the founding fathers wanted the president selected. (reaching back in my memrory here) They wanted a group of (lack of better term) elder-statesmen to decide who would be president and vice president. The people didn't like that and so basiclly we vote to tell those guys what to say. We don't vote for the guys..but they are suppose to say what we tell them.

bingo. the fact that gore won the popular and lost the electoral college is basically a technicality due to different population distributions now.

i hope that in a few years this system can be abolished, but with the way that this country resists intellectual progress i doubt it.

not really . . . . it was set up because back in the day they did not have telephones, and telegraphs, etc, so they needed a way to get the info from the far away states back to Philly, or Wash, DC

today it is there more as a benefit to the smaller, less populated states so their vote counts too

okay fair enough...I was trying to untangle that in my head and I had a foggy memory of my dad (where my political interest came from) saying somethign similar to what you just said. I recall something about it forcing canidates to campaign in the smaller states where they might otherwise spend little time worrying about them. I am sure that is just a side benefit.


This is what happens when you do part of your political science degree in the US and part in the UK..you have to really hunt back in your brain sometimes for the US stuff.

interesting thread. it has always been very confusing to me.

There were a few reasons behind the creation of the Electoral College.

Letting a group of "elder statesmen" really elect the President and giving the big to the popular vote was never part of some "scheme". since the Electoral College IS elected. In November we will be voting for who gets to be a member of it. This needs to be said because some people think the EC is some appointed crap like the Supreme Court.

There are 2 main reasons behind it.

1) Back in the early days... having THREE strong candidates who drew their support regionally was more common. And it was conceivable that they might split the vote 30-30-40% with that 40% candidate being despised by the other 60%. (usually a North vs. South thing) This basically sets up the EC to make deals for Pres, VP, etc. without the additional time for run-off elections. Also, it prevented someone from becoming President from the US without getting direct or indirect support from many states. (Versus picking their home state and it's neighbors and racking up 100% of the vote in them) Things have changed a bit now that voters vote based more on race and urban vs. suburban/rural.... But you get the point, you couldn't just pick one area, pump all the votes out of it and win. You had to win other states or make deals with someone who did.

If Nader had ACTUALLY done well enough in 2000 to get some Electoral Votes... and then thrown them to Gore to put him "over-the-top"... people would be bowing down thinking it was the greatest thing on Earth. If you look at a blue state / red state map... It shows it worked as intended.... Bush "barely" beat Gore in a majority of states... whereas Gore crushed Bush, in a few.


2) It also serves as an "emergency backup" system in case the candidate falls ills, dies, or is killed sometime between being put on the ballot (September) and taking office (January). this way... is something bad happens... the Electors who got their positions by supporting the dead guy will just choose someone else in January instead of having to redo the election and leaving the office in limbo.

...time to go back to my old job writing for Schoolhouse Rock

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepol...ectcollege.htm - is a pretty informative site I just found (as with all about.com sites, watch out for pop-ups.

Check out the stats below I'm thinking that if over half a million people more voted for gore he should be president but that's just me and 539,946 others thought...

2000 Election: Bush 271, Gore 266, DC 1
U.S. popular vote: Gore +539,947 votes
U. S. Supreme Court: Bush 5, Gore 4

When asked, I believe even the not-so-shy James Carville had to acknowledge that George Bush became President completely according to the law and Constitution.
Yeah. It's a f'ed up system. But the EC helps insulate the national outcome from some states having extra high turnout due to getting "their hometown boy" elected or extra low due to bad weather.
e.g. what if there is a big hurricane in Florida or a freak blizzard in the Northeast... Without the EC, that could decide an election.
Or on the other side, it makes Bush and Kerry happy to know that once the other guy has a "win" in a certain state... It does him no good to keep piling on the votes in states that already support him. So in reality, it's odd to say that Bush or Kerry has to "please" the far right or far left... since winning depends entirely on the middle.

The Supreme Court didn't decide "GW should be President.... they decided that there had been enough fcuking recounts in florida... Gore (AFAIK) hadn't won any of them... and it was just wasting time leaving things in limbo.

It won't matter this fall because re-election campaigns tend to be a landslide one way or the other. Thank God because I don't know if I could take having the left half or right half of the country bitching about the outcome another 4 years.

Plus... BECAUSE there's an Electoral College... We can't trust that the Popular Vote is accurate because people in some "locked up" states don't bother to vote BECAUSE they know their guy already won or lost that state... So it screws with the vote tallies.

I once actually saw the math proving why we need the electoral college system. I find it vastlyt preferable to the popular vote.

Why? Because otherwise, it would be very, very easy to win the US Presidential election by campaigning only in major cities. That's where most of the population actually is. A candidate who appealed to city-dwellers could really leave behind the rest of the country. It's one of many instances when the Constitution helps safeguard a minority group against the majority. It makes for more well-rounded candidates and campaigning.

You bring up an important point. The electoral college protects the rights of smaller states. There are laws in many states that bind an Elector to the canadate he/she is pledged to on at least the first vote of the college.

The electoral college solves many issues. One of the goals at 1st was what if the voters were stupid and voted for the wrong person. That idea has faded, but one of the reasons Electors are bond by law now to vote a certain way.

The electoral college solves many issues in time of emergency and should not be abandoned. Bush wining, like it or not is the constitution in action and working the way it should for many good reasons. Next time it may tilt in favor of your point of view.

Here is something to ponder. What if a person won by a landslide and died before he was sworn to office. In Missourri, his wife might get the job.... just being sarcastic.

If there's one thing where the minority should not get artificial protection, it's democracy. Representative democracy is about giving the majority the power to decide who rules the country.

The electoral college system is totally and utterly ridiculous. Every vote counts? Only in swing states. And, even then, some votes count more than others, depending on where one lives.


The idea that basing elections on the popular vote would cause politicians to only focus on those living in the big cities is nonsense. Exactly because every vote would count, politicians would be forced to appeal to as many voters as possible. They'd even be forced to do extensive campaigning in those states where they're sure to get a minority of the votes.