Electoral Vote vs. Popular Vote

[psyko514]

Someone wanna give me a 3 second crash course in American politics? I didn't follow the results of the last election, so some terms are new to me.

I understand what the popular vote is, but I'm not totally clear on the electoral vote. How do they determine how many votes each state has. For example, why is Ohio worth 20 votes?

And why does is the electoral vote more important than the popular vote? If we take the 2000 election as an example, more people voted for Gore, but Bush won the electoral vote. What's the justification/logic behind basing the decision on the electoral vote?

[Nathan]

The popular vote means nothing, its not important, they just show it so you know.

The Electoral-College votes for the president in I think January, and each state has its own system to pick who gets to be their electors. Most states use a winner-take-all system where the winner gets to choose all electors. That is why if Ohio goes to Bush by 51% against 49% he gets all 20 and not 11 vs 9 of the electors.

The number of electors depend on the size of the state, with a minimum of 3. Each Senator is an elector, as far as I understand, and then there are at least 2 others.

[Dagwolf]

Originally posted by Nathan
The popular vote means nothing, its not important, they just show it so you know.

The Electoral-College votes for the president in I think January, and each state has its own system to pick who gets to be their electors. Most states use a winner-take-all system where the winner gets to choose all electors. That is why if Ohio goes to Bush by 51% against 49% he gets all 20 and not 11 vs 9 of the electors.

The number of electors depend on the size of the state, with a minimum of 3. Each Senator is an elector, as far as I understand, and then there are at least 2 others.

That's correct.. but I don't think I would have understood it if I didn't already know how it works.

It's not an easy concept.

[Basic_man]

Originally posted by Nathan

The Electoral-College votes for the president in I think January, and each state has its own system to pick who gets to be their electors. Most states use a winner-take-all system where the winner gets to choose all electors. That is why if Ohio goes to Bush by 51% against 49% he gets all 20 and not 11 vs 9 of the electors.

Cool, good to know !

[reynold]

Sometimes Popularity doesn't make it. really it doesn't.

[psyko514]

Originally posted by Nathan
The popular vote means nothing, its not important, they just show it so you know.

The Electoral-College votes for the president in I think January, and each state has its own system to pick who gets to be their electors. Most states use a winner-take-all system where the winner gets to choose all electors. That is why if Ohio goes to Bush by 51% against 49% he gets all 20 and not 11 vs 9 of the electors.

The number of electors depend on the size of the state, with a minimum of 3. Each Senator is an elector, as far as I understand, and then there are at least 2 others.

This sounds kinda complicated... If I understand correctly (and I probably don't), the people don't choose the President, but instead they choose the people who will choose the President?

Why isn't it as simple as the guy with the most votes wins? Why is the Electoral College system better?

[mackey]

As far as I remember or what I was told is that the electoral college was designed back in the day because people are idiots and it was the fail safe to elect the president or something...



fuck if I know, I just know this is BS...


" Not a real college. It is a group of persons called electors, who are chosen by voters in their states to officially elect the President and Vice President. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of representatives in both houses of Congress. "

[mackey]

this is what i'm looking for....

the first paragraph to this page on this site...

"hen the country was founded over 200 years ago, there was concern by the Founding Fathers that the voters weren't smart enough to make "proper" decisions when voting for the president. (Well, there was little trust allowing the people vote for their Senator, too, as senate seats were appointed by the individual state's leaders, a practice that continued until 1920.) Despite the fact that very few were given the right to vote in the earliest years -- only male landowners over the age of 21 could vote -- the Founding Fathers decided to write the Electoral College into the Constitution."

http://wv.essortment.com/whathistoryele_rggl.htm

[baddog]

Originally posted by psyko514
This sounds kinda complicated... If I understand correctly (and I probably don't), the people don't choose the President, but instead they choose the people who will choose the President?

Why isn't it as simple as the guy with the most votes wins? Why is the Electoral College system better?

Because if they made it based on the popular vote alone, candidates would only worry about the people in PA, CA, NY, FL, OH, TX since that is where most people live.

FYI, only twice in history has the electoral vote not matched the popular vote. 2000, and back in the 1800's.

Bush won the popular vote, so don't blame this on the EC.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Its almost the same as mp's in canada..

Legally the electoral voters are bound to pick the popular vote in their area, but heres something i bet you dont know..

The electoral votes for each area shifted since the last election and if each state had the same electoral votes as it did in the last election kerry would have won..

Population trends will shift electoral votes around..

Ohio actually had a retroactive amendment to allow each are to input its own electoral vote instead of all the electoral votes for ohio going to the majority winner. But it didnt pass.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Each state has a designated amount of electoral votes based on population.

In most states, the candidate with the most popular votes receives all of the state's electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska apportion their votes between congressional district and two at-large votes, but neither state has ever split its electoral votes. Colorado voters will decide on Election Day whether to change from a winner-takes-all approach to one tied to the state's overall popular vote.

[psyko514]

Originally posted by baddog
Because if they made it based on the popular vote alone, candidates would only worry about the people in PA, CA, NY, FL, OH, TX since that is where most people live.

FYI, only twice in history has the electoral vote not matched the popular vote. 2000, and back in the 1800's.

Bush won the popular vote, so don't blame this on the EC.

I'm not blaming anything on the EC. I'm aware he won the popular vote as well. I'm just trying to understand how the system works as it's different from ours in Canada.

So I was right. Technically, the people don't choose the President. The choose the people who will choose the President.

Is it possible that the Electoral College choose a different President? Say a few Republican senators have a change of heart between now and January and they decide to vote Democrat instead?

What about the 3rd party vote? From what I remember last night, no states were won by 3rd party candidates. Does that mean they get no votes in January? If they were to get votes, could they technically vote Democrat and switch things up?

[psyko514]

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
Its almost the same as mp's in canada..

Legally the electoral voters are bound to pick the popular vote in their area, but heres something i bet you dont know..

The electoral votes for each area shifted since the last election and if each state had the same electoral votes as it did in the last election kerry would have won..

Population trends will shift electoral votes around..

Ohio actually had a retroactive amendment to allow each are to input its own electoral vote instead of all the electoral votes for ohio going to the majority winner. But it didnt pass.

Redistricting... One of many news terms bandied about last night. I heard they did it in Texas for example, in areas that had voted Gore last time.

Didn't hear about the amendment in Ohio though.

[sperbonzo]

Enough with the idealogue crap. The reason for the electoral college is this:

There is a reason why this country is called the UNITED STATES of America, and not just AMERICA.

It was originally seen that each state would have it's own issues that were important to it. For example, the things that are important to people in an industrialized coastal city are far different from the people in a rural central state. This is reflected in the 10th amendment to the constitution which says that all rights and powers not already reserved to the federal goverment shall be reserved to the state and local goverments. This amendment also recognizes that it is FAR easier for an individual or small group to express their concerns and to have a say at the local level than at the federal level.

Therefore, the electoral collage keeps the small areas of high population on the coasts from imposing their will exclusively over the lower populations of the central states.

By making the votes of each state stand alone as a single decision (51% win in a state wins all the electoral votes for that state), while at the same time making that decision's importance determined by the population of the state, results in a system that both recognizes the popular vote, while allowing areas of the country that have their own issues to have a voice.

[Dalai lama]

k

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally posted by sperbonzo
Enough with the idealogue crap. The reason for the electoral college is this:

There is a reason why this country is called the UNITED STATES of America.

It was originally seen that each state would have it's own issues that were important to it. For example, the things that are important to people in an industrialized coastal city are far different from the people in a rural central state. This is reflected in the 10th amendment to the constitution which says that all rights and powers not already reserved to the federal goverment shall be reserved to the state and local goverments. This amendment also recognizes that it is FAR easier for an individual or small group to express their concerns and to have a say at the local level than at the federal level.

Therefore, the electoral collage keeps the small areas of high population on the coasts from imposing their will exclusively over the lower populations of the central states.

By making the votes of each state stand alone as a single decision (51% win in a state wins all the electoral votes for that state), while at the same time making that decision's importance determined by the population of the state, results in a system that both recognizes the popular vote, while allowing areas of the country that have their own issues to have a voice.

Good explanation.


I think the system is fair the way it is. People just didnt vote the way everyone wanted them too

[sperbonzo]

Originally posted by sperbonzo
Enough with the idealogue crap. The reason for the electoral college is this:

There is a reason why this country is called the UNITED STATES of America, and not just AMERICA.

It was originally seen that each state would have it's own issues that were important to it. For example, the things that are important to people in an industrialized coastal city are far different from the people in a rural central state. This is reflected in the 10th amendment to the constitution which says that all rights and powers not already reserved to the federal goverment shall be reserved to the state and local goverments. This amendment also recognizes that it is FAR easier for an individual or small group to express their concerns and to have a say at the local level than at the federal level.

Therefore, the electoral collage keeps the small areas of high population on the coasts from imposing their will exclusively over the lower populations of the central states.

By making the votes of each state stand alone as a single decision (51% win in a state wins all the electoral votes for that state), while at the same time making that decision's importance determined by the population of the state, results in a system that both recognizes the popular vote, while allowing areas of the country that have their own issues to have a voice.

Does this make sense psyko514?

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by psyko514
This sounds kinda complicated... If I understand correctly (and I probably don't), the people don't choose the President, but instead they choose the people who will choose the President?

Why isn't it as simple as the guy with the most votes wins? Why is the Electoral College system better?

Small states like Vermont worried that more populous states like Virginia would be able to determine the president and thus they would always be ruled by a "foreign" ruler.

The electoral system is a compromise mostly between those who wanted states to determine the president and those who wanted a popular vote. As is always the case there were also many other ideas of what the new government should be, how its leader should be determined, what the role of that leader should be and even what he would be called.

All you need to do to determine the number of electoral votes for each state is to add the number of senators and congressmen from that state.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by psyko514
This sounds kinda complicated... If I understand correctly (and I probably don't), the people don't choose the President, but instead they choose the people who will choose the President?

Why isn't it as simple as the guy with the most votes wins? Why is the Electoral College system better?

Small states like Vermont worried that more populous states like Virginia would be able to determine the president and thus they would always be ruled by a "foreign" ruler.

The electoral system is a compromise mostly between those who wanted states to determine the president and those who wanted a popular vote. As is always the case there were also many other ideas of what the new government should be, how its leader should be determined, what the role of that leader should be and even what he would be killed.

All you need to do to determine the number of electoral votes for each state is to add the number of senators and congressmen from that state.

[D-man]

Wow - funny how so many people do not understand the process - anyway this is how it does work -



The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:

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).

The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions
traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.

On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].

On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.

In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).

The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.

The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.

At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.

Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine of information, maps, and statistics.

Here is a list of the EC vote # by state!

http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

[Loki]

so does this mean its NOT OVER??

Jesus christ someone just shoot me

[4Pics]

it's over

[NichePay_Manny]

Yes it means it is not over.Ohio will continue counting provisional ballots.What that means if Kerry gets 90% or more of 150.000 ballots things might change.

check the story on yahoo.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...r/ohio_ballots

[D-man]

Originally posted by vdc-Loki
so does this mean its NOT OVER??

Jesus christ someone just shoot me

it's over I asked my attorney today - conceding is the same as withdrawing from the race

[ironlung]

no shit


thanks, good stuff to know

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by sperbonzo
Enough with the idealogue crap. The reason for the electoral college is this:

There is a reason why this country is called the UNITED STATES of America, and not just AMERICA.

It was originally seen that each state would have it's own issues that were important to it. For example, the things that are important to people in an industrialized coastal city are far different from the people in a rural central state. This is reflected in the 10th amendment to the constitution which says that all rights and powers not already reserved to the federal goverment shall be reserved to the state and local goverments. This amendment also recognizes that it is FAR easier for an individual or small group to express their concerns and to have a say at the local level than at the federal level.

Therefore, the electoral collage keeps the small areas of high population on the coasts from imposing their will exclusively over the lower populations of the central states.

By making the votes of each state stand alone as a single decision (51% win in a state wins all the electoral votes for that state), while at the same time making that decision's importance determined by the population of the state, results in a system that both recognizes the popular vote, while allowing areas of the country that have their own issues to have a voice.

I haven't read the post after yours,

YOU got it right.

I don't know about you other people from the USA, but I learned about the electoral college in the 6th and 7th grade.

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by NichePay_Manny
Yes it means it is not over.Ohio will continue counting provisional ballots.What that means if Kerry gets 90% or more of 150.000 ballots things might change.

check the story on yahoo.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...r/ohio_ballots

The odds of Kerry getting 90% or more of 150.000 provisional ballots is something like 1 trillion trillion trillion to one

Don't know what number 1 trillion trillion trillion is

[VeriSexy]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepol...ectcollege.htm

[psyko514]

thanks every one for their input. this was a very educational thread.

for those who missed it, i'm Canadian, so it's not out of the ordinary that i ask for info on a foreign voting system.

and also to clarify, i wasn't criticising the system, just simply trying to understand it.

[pornguy]

The more complicated something is, the easier it is to change the rules and get away with it.