Popular Vs. Electoral votes?

[handy]

What's this? Gore has more votes than Bush, so he won? Nope, whoever has the most Electoral votes wins. Now Im mad cause the people have spoken, G has to most votes, but may not win. That electoral votes determine who wins has been around a long time. Why doesn't the guy with the most votes win?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by handy

What's this? Gore has more votes than Bush, so he won? Nope, whoever has the most Electoral votes wins. Now Im mad cause the people have spoken, G has to most votes, but may not win. That electoral votes determine who wins has been around a long time. Why doesn't the guy with the most votes win?

Because that's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it.

Zev Steinhardt

[toadspittle]

Because that's the way they made this country.

[Crafter_Man]

Originally posted by handy

What's this? Gore has more votes than Bush, so he won? Nope, whoever has the most Electoral votes wins. Now Im mad cause the people have spoken, G has to most votes, but may not win. That electoral votes determine who wins has been around a long time. Why doesn't the guy with the most votes win?

Simple-minded people see no rational in having an "Electoral College."

But our Founding Fathers were not simple-minded folks.

Do your homework, and find out why we have an Electoral College.

[Mauve Dog]

Or, to put it another way, we are a Republic, not a Democracy. The 'will of the people' is not necessarily what drives the government. More like 'the will of the people's representatives.'

[Diceman]

Face it, Handy. This country was never supposed to be a pure democracy. The electoral college is designed specifically to prevent a few large, heavily populated states from overwhelming many smaller, less-populated states. Some people (mostly in California and New York) are calling for eliminating the EC, but any such ammendment would fail because the small states know that they'd be committing political suicide if they passed it.

[Diceman]

I'd better say that I had no intention of jumping on a "Let's make fun of Handy" bandwagon. I was just trying to make my point. Plus, I only got about two hours of sleep because I was so nervous about the election. :)

[pldennison]

According to CNN, the popular vote as of 12:05 pm ET today was Gore 49%, Bush . . . 49%. A majority of only about 250,000 votes out of 96 million cast. I would hardly call that a mandate from the American people.

[Crafter_Man]

There is a reason we have an electoral college, and it is rooted in political philosophies the Founding Fathers held. Without getting into too much detail, the reason we have an electoral college is because it acts as a buffer between the spontaneous desires and whims of the people vs. the serious responsibilities held by the government.

You see, our Founding Fathers were very fearful of two things:

1. Monarchies
2. Democracies

They thought both were evil. And that's one of the reasons you and I aren't able to directly vote for federal candidates.

BTW: I fully agree with our Founding Fathers on this issue; democracies are just as bad as monarchies. In fact, I think they're worse.

Suffice to say, if you live in the U.S.A., you do not live in a "democracy"; you live in a constitutional republic.

And thank God for that.

[brad_d]

The question "why do we have that &(*#$@# electoral college" is really two-fold:

1 - Why do we have winner-take-all votes districted by states?

2 - Why do we vote for "electors" rather than the candidates themselves?

Don't forget: we could very well have #1 without #2. In fact, we basically do. Electors in about half the states (a cite was given in some previous thread) are legally bound by state law to vote in accordance with their pledge. Electors in the other half may vote for someone else, but it so rarely happens that it's just not that big of a concern.

My opinion: #2 is so transparent that it's not an issue.

#1 alone allows a candidate to win the popular vote, yet lose the election. This is far from transparent, and to me is the far more relevant aspect of the Electoral College system we have.

At the risk of putting words in handy's mouth, I think that (point #1) was what his question was about.

[bibliophage]

Originally posted by pldennison
Gore 49%, Bush . . . 49%. A majority of only about 250,000 votes out of 96 million castJust to pick nits, it's not a majority, but a plurality. If it isn't over 50%, it isn't a majority.

[BobT]

Picking more nits, Gore has a plurality with 49%, but the 250,000 or so votes isn't the plurality. It's just the margin or the difference.

[Fear Itself]

Just the same, if the outcome remains as it is expected, with Gore receiving "the difference" as you put it, Bush will go down in history as the Roger Maris of presidential politics, with a big fat * next to his name. Gore will be the shadow president, and will have a bully pulpit to say "I told you so". I predict Bush will be remembered as the least influential President in American history.

[KeithB]

Are the laws forcing elector's to vote for the selected candidate constitutional? It seems that if a state mandated term limit (For senators and congresspeople) are unconstitutional, than any state-imposed limits on the elector's are, too.

Or, is just that it has not been challenged yet.

[2sense]

Crafter_Man :

My homework has shown me that the FF ( Founding Fathers or Fist Fuckers- take your pick ) were a bunch of elitist pricks.

You can find my cite in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=859934#post859934) where I am arguing that the EC is a big old steamy pile of shit.

[2sense]

I did a search on "electoral college" and found a bunch of threads. I didn't notice that this was in GQ.
Apologies to Chronos and manny if that wasn't up to snuff.

[brad_d]

Originally posted by KeithB
Are the laws forcing elector's to vote for the selected candidate constitutional? It seems that if a state mandated term limit (For senators and congresspeople) are unconstitutional, than any state-imposed limits on the elector's are, too.

Or, is just that it has not been challenged yet.
I did some hunting, and dredged up this site (http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/faq.html#wrong vote), hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration.

It pretty much says that the constitutionality of such laws has not been "specifically ruled on" by the Supreme Court. It also says that 24 states plus the District of Columbia have laws requiring electors to vote their pledge.

[Balthisar]

Originally posted by brad_d
The question "why do we have that &(*#$@# electoral college" is really two-fold:

1 - Why do we have winner-take-all votes districted by states?

2 - Why do we vote for "electors" rather than the candidates themselves?

Don't forget: we could very well have #1 without #2. In fact, we basically do. Electors in about half the states (a cite was given in some previous thread) are legally bound by state law to vote in accordance with their pledge. Electors in the other half may vote for someone else, but it so rarely happens that it's just not that big of a concern.


Michigan is one of the states that have legally bound electors, but this provision only applies to the first vote of the EC (at least in Michigan). However, according to CNN last night (early this morning, that is), there have been instances of electors voting contrary to their mandates. The states were powerless to effect any punishment, and it was (and is) Congress' decision whether to accept the vote (made by certain traitors). Typically electors are picked for their loyalty. I can't picture any trading sides on the first vote anyway.

As for the winner-take-all approach, Maine is an example of a state that does NOT have winner take all. It awards electors based on district, much like I expressed wishes that Michigan would, in another thread a few days ago.

For the anti-EC crowd, the EC really *is* a good thing, even in this modern day and age. As is so often pointed out, it prevents states like CA and NY from dominating everyone else. Our nation is not founded on the basis of a democracy; we are a Federation (uh, "federal" anyone?) of 50 pseudo-independent states. The purpose of the federal government is NOT to represent "we the people" but the states (which is composed of the people). I for one don't want leftist Californians dictating policy within my state (which sadly swung to Gore last night) -- California has nothing to do with Michigan!

For the same reasons cited above, I would *love* to see MI follow Maine's lead and allow districting the vote. The greatest part of Michigan (per area) is NOT Detroit, but yet the state allows all 18 votes (i.e., 16 districts) to go to one party or the other based solely on the mood of high-population Detroit area, which is nothing like the rest of the state.

I'd like to express the same desire for other states, but I cannot in good conscience. Since I am a "citizen" (flame me) of Michigan, other states' concerns aren't my business.

Oh yeah, THANK YOU NADER!!!

[ubermensch]

Originally posted by Balthisar
[/B]For the anti-EC crowd, the EC really *is* a good thing, even in this modern day and age. As is so often pointed out, it prevents states like CA and NY from dominating everyone else. Our nation is not founded on the basis of a democracy; we are a Federation (uh, "federal" anyone?) of 50 pseudo-independent states. The purpose of the federal government is NOT to represent "we the people" but the states (which is composed of the people). I for one don't want leftist Californians dictating policy within my state (which sadly swung to Gore last night) -- California has nothing to do with Michigan!
[/B]

personally, i like the idea that we directly elect presidents...but

the 'leftist' californians could not dictate policy within michigan.... that's why we have governers, to dictate policy within the states, within the union.... california has nothing to do with michigan, except that the resident's opinions should be equal, no matter what state they live in.

[Fear Itself]

For the same reasons cited above, I would *love* to see MI follow Maine's lead and allow districting the vote. The greatest part of Michigan (per area) is NOT Detroit, but yet the state allows all 18 votes (i.e., 16 districts) to go to one party or the other based solely on the mood of high-population Detroit area, which is nothing like the rest of the state.
I agree 100%; all states should adopt proportional electoral vote allocation. Could a Supreme court case be made against the constitutionality of "winner take all" laws? If they were declared unconstitutional, it would go a long way toward rectifying the electoral college system, without resorting to amending the constitution to abolish the EC altogether.

[BobT]

I don't think you can make any constitutional argument against winner take all elections in the states. The Constitution just says that each state legislature may appoint the electors for its state. It doesn't say how they have to do it. South Carolina's were picked by the state legislature well into the 19th century before the popular vote was used there.

I wonder if there has been a case of this type before the Court. I would think there has been.

[Triskadecamus]

So, if I am following this argument correctly, our wise founding fathers arranged this so that the evil states of California, and New York are not able to dictate their preference to the rest of the country. And because of their great foresight, Florida gets to dictate its preference to the rest of the country instead. And this is a good thing. Did I get that right?

Tris

[BobT]

Florida is just dictating the election because it happens to be the only large state that is still undecided. If California were still undecided, it would be deciding the election.

The decisive state will likely vary from election to election.

[Lance Turbo]

Does anyone know where I could get the names and/or e-mail addresses of the electors in the states that Bush carried? I'd like to ask them all to screw their pledge and vote according to the will of the people.

[toadspittle]

Originally posted by Balthisar

the 'leftist' californians could not dictate policy within michigan....

I'd wager that people in California could dictate policy in Alaska--say, by electing a president who is pro opening up protected natural areas to more oil drilling. Or in any other state by electing a pres. who is pro closing military bases, etc. (I know the legislature decides that sort of thing, but the pres. still has to sign it.)

[sailor]

Because this is a union of *states*, not a union of people. It is the Unites *States* of America not the United *People* of America. If when the union was formed all representation was made proportional to population, then the less populated states wuld not have joined. That is also why you have a Senate where all states have equal say. If you change that you are changing the basic law of the land and conceivably some states could say "OK, in that case we will no longer be part of the Union. If California is going to run the country, then we would rather be our own country."

[Zumba The Cat]

Originally posted by Lance Turbo
Does anyone know where I could get the names and/or e-mail addresses of the electors in the states that Bush carried? I'd like to ask them all to screw their pledge and vote according to the will of the people.

The will of the people?

The last time I checked MSNBC Gore was only ahead 167,838 votes in the popular vote. This was out of a total of 100,804,464 votes.

Also, if Bush takes Flordia then he will have won the popular vote in 30 (or 29, I am not sure about OR) out of 50 states.

I don't think that the will of the people is clearly Al Gore.

[cmkeller]

toadspittle:

I'd wager that people in California could dictate policy in Alaska--say, by electing a president who is pro opening up protected natural areas to more oil drilling. Or in any other state by electing a pres. who is pro closing military bases, etc. (I know the legislature decides that sort of thing, but the pres. still has to sign it.)

Actually, it looks like the opposite is true...Alaskans went for Bush, who is pro-drilling, and Californians went for Gore, who is anti.

[handy]

Sure, you can laugh at my question if you want. But this morning on the news the Gore people were talking about suing....A lawsuit could take months & in that time, the Speaker of the House could be president.

[Debbie]

If electors have to vote the popular vote anyway, why do we have them? Isn't it the same as the popular vote winning?
I'm sorry, but two days after the election I still don't understand how this stuff works.

Deb

[Munch]

Debbie, there are dozens of threads about the EC on this site. Nearly all of them give explanations of how the EC works. Please look it up. The information is available to you, if you're willing to look for it.

[Lance Turbo]

Originally posted by Zumba The Cat
The will of the people?

The last time I checked MSNBC Gore was only ahead 167,838 votes in the popular vote. This was out of a total of 100,804,464 votes.

Also, if Bush takes Flordia then he will have won the popular vote in 30 (or 29, I am not sure about OR) out of 50 states.

I don't think that the will of the people is clearly Al Gore.


I'm pretty sure that it couldn't be more clear. More people voted for Gore. I'll admit that it's not by an overwhelming margin, but I can't think of a better way to determine the will of the people other than the popular vote. Now I just have to convince republican electors that the will of the people is the best way to determine the president.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by brad_d
The question "why do we have that &(*#$@# electoral college" is really two-fold:

1 - Why do we have winner-take-all votes districted by states?

2 - Why do we vote for "electors" rather than the candidates themselves?



Interestingly, I just read a really good article {Here ("")} on this very topic.

A mathematician has actually calculated the ways in which voting power is affected by different polling systems and population sizes, and he has found that each individual voter has MORE chance of swaying an election if the voting population is divided into districts (witness: Florida, November 2000).

He further makes the observation that the fair winnner SHOULD NOT necessarily be the candidate who gets the most votes, just as the winner of the World Series isn't necessarily the team that scores the most runs, but has to win a majority of 7 games.

It's a really interesting and thought-provoking article, and I am seriously rethinking my opinion on the electoral college based on it. Check it out.

By the way, on #2 above, the electors were not originally (and still are not, if I remember correctly) required to vote the popular vote from their respective states. They were directed to pore over the issues much more carefully than the average voter. The same way we elect a Senator to make laws, a Sheriff to enforce them, a Contractor to build a house, etc. We can't all be expected to have every expertise, so we choose people who do have it, but share our vision. So we choose electors with opinions that match ours (more or less) to study each candidate's history, experience, what have you, and make a more informed opinion than we can reasonably make. Thus Party A electors would be more likely to vote for the Party A candidate, but not necessarily required if they found good reason not to.

After thinking about it, I'm inclined to believe the electoral college may not be such a horrible idea as I had previously thought.

[sailor]

If we want to be consistent with the principle that the voting power of states should be proportional to their population, then the US should not only give up its veto power in the UN but also accept that China's vote should weigh six times as much as that of the US, and India's vote... well, you get the picture. Anybody willing to defend that position?

[moodtobestewed]

Originally posted by sailor
If you change that you are changing the basic law of the land and conceivably some states could say "OK, in that case we will no longer be part of the Union. If California is going to run the country, then we would rather be our own country."

Heck, I say let 'em! States like Delaware, Wyoming, etc get something of a free ride as the laws currently stand, since their population is disproportionally powerful in relation to their size. If they want to get pissy with us, well...

Personally, there's a few states I wouldn't mind seeing EXPELLED from the Union.

[Guinastasia]

I thought one of the points of the EC was to make sure that the larger states didn't become more powerful, that every state counted, and it wasn't about which state was larger, or more populated, or something like that?

[pldennison]

Originally posted by sailor
Because this is a union of *states*, not a union of people. It is the Unites *States* of America not the United *People* of America.

Well, the Preamble to the Constitution does say, "We the People of the United States . . ." That doesn't make your point less valid, but it is there nonetheless.

If you change that you are changing the basic law of the land and conceivably some states could say "OK, in that case we will no longer be part of the Union. If California is going to run the country, then we would rather be our own country."

I think the kibbosh was pretty permanently placed on that idea about 135 years ago. I can't imagine any state even seriously considering trying.

[Zumba The Cat]

Originally posted by Lance Turbo
I'm pretty sure that it couldn't be more clear. More people voted for Gore. I'll admit that it's not by an overwhelming margin, but I can't think of a better way to determine the will of the people other than the popular vote. Now I just have to convince republican electors that the will of the people is the best way to determine the president.

Maybe I didn't make my point correctly.

It isn't clear that more of the American people voted for Gore. The percentage difference in votes is less then the difference in FL which forced the recount there.

You saw how they have "found" more votes for both Gore and Bush in the FL recount. A recount of all states could easily change the popular vote.

The margin of difference is so small as to be almost nothing. In addition there are still absentee ballots in many states which have not been counted.

In any case, the number of people don't matter. The EC matters. Thank goodness! Can you imagine the FL recount times 50?

[Maeglin]

By the way, on #2 above, the electors were not originally (and still are not, if I remember correctly) required to vote the popular vote from their respective states.

This, of course, is no longer true. Election laws in 25 states including the District of Columbia obligate the electors to vote for the candidate to which they are bound. Failure to do so subjects the elector to fines and replacement. The Supreme Court has upheld these state laws.

MR

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by pldennison
Originally posted by sailor
Because this is a union of *states*, not a union of people. It is the Unites *States* of America not the United *People* of America.

Well, the Preamble to the Constitution does say, "We the People of the United States . . ." That doesn't make your point less valid, but it is there nonetheless...

That's true, but if you read carefully, it says (all emphasis mine, of course):

We the people OF the UNITED STATES, in order to [attain a number of very important goals which are not really relevant to my point here], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The main clause of the preamble says simply, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution." It does not say "We the people [b]ARE[b/] the United States...AND establish...," it says "We the people OF the United States...DO establish..." A very important difference.

In other words, Sailor is exactly right. The US is a union of States into one Nation. Not a union of people.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool
Interestingly, I just read a really good article {HERE ("]Here[/url]} on this very topic.

DAMN DAMN DAMN!!! I just now noticed my link was stupid.

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm