Electoral college.

Why does it still exist?
The Electoral College was created because the leaders at the time assumed that the general populace was not educated enough to vote for the president.
Well, we're educated enough now, so why do we still have it?
I think the time has come for online voting AND direct popular voting.
Peace,
mangeorge

------------------
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything" Mark Twain 1894

Hmmm.. call me cynical, but I don't think the majority of the population is educated enough to vote for the next color in a bag of M&Ms, much less the leader of United States of America. Besides, it does make for a nice easy way to track who's popular in what states. Online voting? I hope you're kidding. The White House and CIA can't keep their own websites from getting hacked, and you want to let online votes count?

------------------
"I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."

Well, here's one good reason as to why it still exists...

To change it would require a constitutional amendment, and thus it would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Since electoral votes are matched to the number of representatives/senators a state has, changing to a purely popular vote would reduce the election power of small states. There are enough small states to block the 3/4 requirement.

Not necessarily. The assumption you make in your statement, Undead Dude, is that each state has about the same voter turnout and the same percent of registered voters, which is not always the case. That is why a larger state like California, with its electoral votes, might reduce in voter turnout after it finds out one of the candidates will inevitably win, giving that state a stronger electoral power even though it had less turnout.

------------------
"[He] beat his fist down upon the table and hurt his hand and became so
further enraged... that he beat his fist down upon the table even harder and
hurt his hand some more." -- Joseph Heller's Catch-22

Why does it still exist?
The Electoral College was created because the leaders at the time assumed that the general populace was not educated enough to vote for the president.
Well, we're educated enough now, so why do we still have it?

Are you kidding? When was the last time you went to a fast food restaurant? I went to McDonald's the other day and ordered some french fries. The kid behind the counter said "You want some fries with that?" (-Jay Leno)

A general vote looks to see which candidate is supported by more Americans. The Electoral College has a different function; it looks to see which candidate has a broader base of support.

The weakness of the Electoral College is that it allows a candidate to with with less than half of the popular votes. The strength of the Electoral College is that although the winning candidate has less than half the votes, he will have more than half the states (weighted by population).

He is an example I had wondered about for years. Under the Electoral College system, candidate A can win with just 51% of the electoral votes. That can happen by getting 51& of the popular vote in those specific states, and no votes at all in the other states. In other words, by getting 26% of the popular vote, a candidate can theoretically capture most of the electoral votes.

Even the smallest states have at leat 3 electoral votes, giving the voters of those states a disprportionately strong voice in the Electoral College. Going over the figures from the 1996 election, I found that if a candidate would concentrate on the smallest states, and would be satisfied with getting 51% of the votes in them, he could become President with only 23.5% of the popular vote.

In actual practice, however, this is not going to happen.

Jophiel has a point about online voting.
I use a Mac, so I don't think much about hacking, viruses, and all that. Besides, maybe voting should require some effort.
As for the small states losing power? Hey, "Let them eat cake!" I live in California.
I talk a lot about politics, esp. to younger people. And the two most common themes I hear regarding presidential elections are "My vote doesn't count" and "We already know the winner before we even get to the polls".
I feel that everyones participation is important, including the guy at McDonald's. And I sure don't consider Jay Leno to be the ultimate authority on voting rights.
Peace,
mangeorge


------------------
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything" Mark Twain 1894

I've heard proposals to increase voter turnout by making election day a national holiday. It's not a bad idea, I think. Aside from eliminating the excuse of having to work, it would infuse the act of voting with even greater symbolic value (although it's sad that the symbolic value of voting needs shoring up). If nothing else, it might shame people into going to the polls, since that would be the ostensible reason for their holiday. Hell, it makes more sense than Columbus Day.

My first thought on this was: How often does an electoral college vote not mirror the popular vote in a state?

I can't remember it being in the news anytime recently, so I'm thinking it happens very infrequently. I've read/heard that at least some states have specific laws that say that the electoral college votes are decided by the popular vote.

If this is the case, it sounds more like the issue is one of big/small states and power, not one of an educated populace. However educated or uneducated you say the population is, I think they are already deciding the election by popular vote.

I think it might really be useful to either have completely synchronized voting across the country or have a press blackout on the election until it was over.

That last bit would be tricky, given the first amendment and all. Maybe it could be wrapped into an amendment with the changing the electoral college into simple popular vote. Normally I don't like rewriting the constitution ("Oh I'm an amendment to be, yes an amendment to be. And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me."), but I think this was one area where the forefathers had no way of predicting the shape of things to come.

Not necessarily. The assumption you make in your statement, Undead Dude, is that each state has about the same voter turnout and the same percent of registered voters, which is not always the case. -- krish

I think you missed my point. My point was more about perception than specific statistics. Rhode Island gets 3 electoral votes. California gets 54. The population of Rhode Island is certainly less than 3/54ths of the population of California. So, how likely is it that Rhode Island is going to ratify an abolosihment of the electoral college? Not very. Also, by your example, a purely popular vote would tend to level out voter turnout, since a candidate would no longer "carry a state".

<The Electoral College was created because the leaders at the time assumed that the general populace was not educated enough to vote for the president.> But when you think about it, don't we have a president because the founding fathers believed that the populace wouldn't know how to act without a king?

While it is possible for the person without the most popular votes to be elected president (and has happened 3 times), it is unlikely to happen now.
The last time it occurred was in 1888, when Harrison beat Cleveland. However, that was still close enough to Civil War times and few , if any Southerners, were going to vote Republican. However, the industrial north, which had more electoral votes, went for Harrison, but not as overwhelmingly.

Unless a political issue comes up that divides the country into regional disputes, the 1888 scenario is unlikely.

The other two times a second-place candidate won was in 1824, when Adams beat out Jackson. No candidate got a majority in the electoral vote and Jackson won the popular vote, although not every state had regular voting procedures.

In 1876, Tilden had more popular votes than Hayes, but there was so much fraud in that election that the totals were quite suspect.

I would say if we're looking for electoral reform, the place that needs work is the difficulty of getting on the ballot not the electoral college. I live in New York (admittedly one of the most difficult states for a candidate to get on the ballot) and the rules for becoming a candidate are so arcane and arbitrary that generally half the possible Presidential candidates aren't on the ballot I see. This is true of both primaries and general elections.

>>I've heard proposals to increase voter turnout by making election day a national holiday. It's not a bad idea, I think. Aside from eliminating the excuse of having to work, it would infuse the act of voting with even greater symbolic value (although it's sad that the symbolic value of voting needs shoring up). If nothing else, it might shame people into going to the polls, since that would be the ostensible reason for their holiday. Hell, it makes more sense than Columbus Day.<< Mikael

1. My roommate told me that she always got school off for election day. She lives in New Jersey. Is this an east coast thing? *I* never got school off for elections, even since I've been old enough to vote. (I live in CA.)

2. I haven't gotten Columbus Day since I was 7. People don't really observe it anymore, do they?

3. The national holiday thing sure works in Israel. Wow, is this country insane when it comes to politics (other things too, but I won't go there now). 80% of the general populace votes, and probably a large portion of the other 20% doesn't vote because of reasons of principlel, not because they aren't educated. Or it might just be cause politics is Israel's national pasttime.

~Kyla

1. My roommate told me that she always got school off for election day. She lives in New Jersey. Is this an east coast thing? *I* never got school off for elections, even since I've been old enough to vote. (I live in CA.)

Manny states give kids the day off school on election day because they use schools as polling places and they don't want a lot of unsupervised adults in the school at the same time the kiddies are.

PUN

Keeves, what you posted above about the Electoral College process was absolutely incorrect. For the love of the Union, please, oh please, read the Constitution.

If that's too much for you, then you can at least check the Electoral College's own web site: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/ec-hmpge.html .

The current system does allow someone, such as Mr. clinton, to be elected President although he received LESS than 51% of the so-called popular vote in one election.

So what's the consensus here? Should we change the system, or leave it as it is?
Personally, I think a carfully considered reform would be good.
A few points to think about;
1. Kick the E.C. to the curb.
2. Election day a holliday.
3. Some kind of campaign reform. (money)
4. Delay of exit poll results?

Any other ideas?
Peace,
mangeorge

I have a question along the "my vote doesn't count" lines:

While a U.S. citizen living overseas can vote by absentee ballot, if s/he doesn't have a permanent residence in the U.S., how does the absentee vote count toward an electoral college vote?

Since they still have to pay income tax, wouldn't this qualify as taxation without representation?

------------------
History major. Heed at your own risk.

It's been a long time since the Electoral vote didn't match the same result in the popular vote, and it's unlikely it would ever happen again. The electoral vote only exaggerates the strength of the winning candidate; you may get 51% of the vote, but 68% of the electoral vote, for instance.

What the electoral vote does do is make it important for the candidate to visit states where the election is close, and to heed their concerns. If you lose, say, Pennsylvania, by a thousand popular vote, you can make it up easily elsewhere. If you lose all of Pennsylvania's electoral votes in a close race, you're in a hole. So the candidate spends more time in Pennsylvania to make sure he gets that extra thousand votes.

It's been a long time since the Electoral vote didn't match the same result in the popular vote, and it's unlikely it would ever happen again. The electoral vote only exaggerates the strength of the winning candidate; you may get 51% of the vote, but 68% of the electoral vote, for instance.

What the electoral vote does do is make it important for the candidate to visit states where the election is close, and to heed their concerns. If you lose, say, Pennsylvania, by a thousand popular vote, you can make it up easily elsewhere. If you lose all of Pennsylvania's electoral votes in a close race, you're in a hole. So the candidate spends more time in Pennsylvania to make sure he gets that extra thousand votes.

I don't think we should have direct popular voting. I like to think that the people in the EC are a little bit more educated than the general public. You say that we're educated enough now... I say you haven't been talking to the right people.
Occasionally, one of the people in the EC will vote out of conscience - that's why we occasionally get that one rogue electoral vote. I'd like to see a lot more of that. Just imagine if there was an electoral college in the state that elected Jesse Ventura. Not that he's doing a bad job, but if you had compared resumes with all the candidates, he wouldn't have been called back for an interview.

[quote]While a U.S. citizen living overseas can vote by absentee ballot, if s/he doesn't have a permanent residence in the U.S., how does the absentee vote count toward an electoral college vote?[quote]

If you are in the military, you must have a home of record. You don't have to have a house there or own any property there, but you have to pay state income taxes there and you vote in whatever district you once lived in and your vote is counted for that state. This is true if you are overseas or just in another state. So when we lived in Germany we voted in San Antonio TX elections. When we lived in Maryland, we still voted in San Antonio. Now that we have moved to El Paso we changed our voting registration to here. If we move to Hawaii in a couple of years, we have the option of maintaining El Paso registration, or switching back to San Antonio.

PUN

RealityChuck
Member posted 05-06-99 10:10 AM

It's been a long time since the Electoral vote didn't match the same result in the popular vote, and it's unlikely it would ever happen again. The electoral vote only exaggerates the strength of the winning candidate; you may get 51% of the vote, but 68% of the electoral vote, for instance.

Ah,Reality! You've ignored your namesake. The truth of the matter shows your assertion to be wrong.

The link I posted above is the Electoral College's own web page. Here are some box scores from it (between the quoste lines; I've indicated my observations as such):

Election: 1992
President: William J. Clinton [D]
Main Opponent: George Bush [R]
Electoral Vote: Winner: 370 Main Opponent: 168 Total/Majority: 538/270
Popular Vote: Winner: 44,908,254 Main Opponent: 39,102,343
Vice President: Albert Gore, Jr. (370)
V.P. Opponent: James Danforth Quayle (168)
Notes: Independent candidate H. Ross Perot received 19,741,065 popular votes for President, but no electoral votes.

My observation:

Votes for winner: 44,808,254
Votes for other than winner: 58,843,408
Winner received less than 50% of popular vote but more than 50% of electoral vote.

Election: 1996
President: William J. Clinton [D]
Main Opponent: Bob Dole [R]
Electoral Vote: Winner: 379 Main Opponent: 159 Total/Majority: 538/270
Popular Vote: Winner: 45,590,703 Main Opponent: 37,816,307
Vice President: Albert Gore, Jr. (379)
V.P. Opponent: Jack Kemp (159)
Notes: Reform Party candidate H. Ross Perot received 7,866,284 popular votes for President, but no electoral votes.

My observation:

Votes for winner: 45,590,703
Votes for other than winner: 45,682,591
Winner received less than 50% of popular vote but more than 50% of electoral vote.

"It's been a long time since the Electoral vote didn't match the same result in the popular vote?" I'd say in the last two presidential elections, that's all it's done!

[Markxxx]

It seems to me disbanding the Electoral College would encourage third parties. This would make it more likely the election could be thrown into the House for it to decide.

[Omniscient]

The idea of making election day a national holiday is the best idea I have heard in a very very long time!!!! Give the kids a day off, use the schools for a polling place, the parents will be home to care for the kids who aren't in school. I don't know if this has any real momentum in congress, or if its just one off handed idea, but I really can't think of a downside. Loss of productivity yadda yadda yadda, i don't buy that, we can do without another holiday if need be, combine Presidents Day (I assume that the Lincoln-Washington's B-day combo is nationwide) with this voting holiday. I don't know if I'd make it a yearly holiday or not, but if not then the productivity arguement really loses steam. This needs to get done.

Sadly, i really don't remember all the electoral college stuff, I hoped by reading the thread I'd understand it well, but no luck.

If anyone has the patience to explain a few details to me I'd appreciate it, I just don't have the gumption to do a web search and sort through the porn links to get to some legal/constitution docs that I will need to decipher.

1) IIRC, New Hampshire and Iowa are very important states in the EC for some reason. I've never understood this, why is it so, it certainly isn't the number of EC votes?
2) The canadate gets all or none of a states EC votes, T/F?
3) Popular vote determines who gets the states EC votes, T/F?
4) How are the number of EC votes determined for each state if not directly by population ratio (as per Undead Dude)?
5) Is the EC made up of people? (I didn't think so) If so who are they and what bearing does the popular vote have on them?
6) Is there really a reason why all the states results get in at different times? It seems to me that the fact some states polls close earlier than others is inherently bad. For the sake of parity and fairness why don't they all just close at the same time and open at the same time? (Not clock time, true time 10AM-6PM EST/7AM-3PM PST) As long as everyone has the day off this should not pose any logistical problems that exceed those now in effect.

Finally I have no doubt that reform is needed in many aspects from campaign spending, to the process of getting on the ballot, to exit polls, but these issues about the voting day procedures seem non-partisan, very positive, and easy to alter. Is it just the fear of change that makes us cope with them today?

[Akatsukami]

Omniscient asks a goodly number of questions:

1) IIRC, New Hampshire and Iowa are very important states in the EC for some reason. I've never understood this, why is it so, it certainly isn't the number of EC votes?

They're not important in the Electoral College, they're important (or considered by politicoes to be so, which I guess comes down to the same thing) in the nomination process.

2) The canadate gets all or none of a states EC votes, T/F?

Not a Constitutional requirement, although I believe that it is currently the case in every state except Maine.


This is basically a political decision. That my own state of Connecticut give eight electoral votes to whoever takes a plurality is thought to wield more power than splitting those votes.


In Maine, IIRC, one vote is given the winner of the plurality in each Representational district, and two to the winner of the statewide plurality (see below).

3) Popular vote determines who gets the states EC votes, T/F?

Again, not a Constitutional requirement. Currently, every state does choose electors by popular vote; before the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression, as some would have it), South Carolina's electors were selected by the state legislature.


Additionally, the courts have ruled (I don't think that such a case has ever made to the SC, although I could be wrong) that electors canot be bound in their votes by laws, oaths, or the willadapeepul, but are an independent and freely-choosing body, in principle. They almost always go with their pledges and party affiliation; in each presidential election of the past few decades, however, one or two have "voted their conscience".

4) How are the number of EC votes determined for each state if not directly by population ratio (as per Undead Dude)?

Number of Senators ([i]i.e.</>, two) plus number of Representatives (more or less in proportion to population, but every state must have at least one). That's a Constitutional requirement.


At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the smaller states feared that a government selected by proportional representation would ride roughshod over the rights of those states that happened to have smaller populations. I'd say that they were prescient in that regard.

5) Is the EC made up of people? (I didn't think so) If so who are they and what bearing does the popular vote have on them?

Yep, real people. A dirty little secret in this so-oh-democratic age is that we don't vote for a president, we vote for presidential electors of that party (in some states, this is explicitly mentioned on the ballot; in others, the fact is swept under the rug).


As mentioned above, the EC is theoretically an independent body, and can vote for whoever they damned well please. 99.9+% of the time, though, they vote for the candidate that they pledge themselves to.

6) Is there really a reason why all the states results get in at different times? It seems to me that the fact some states polls close earlier than others is inherently bad. For the sake of parity and fairness why don't they all just close at the same time and open at the same time? (Not clock time, true time 10AM-6PM EST/7AM-3PM PST) As long as everyone has the day off this should not pose any logistical problems that exceed those now in effect.

Because no one in California is dumb enough to get up at 03:00 to vote, and no one in New York s dumb enough to stay up until 23:00 to vote (around here, the polls are open 06:00 - 20:00, not 10:00 - 18:00).


We just have to deal with the unfortunate fact that the U.S. spans seven time zones (counting Alaska and Hawaii, although I think that they only have seven electoral votes between them), and that anything convenient for the left coast is inconvenient for the right coast, and vice versa. The population (and thereby the political power) has historically been in the East, so Easterns have called the shots. With population shifts westward, California and Texas may force polling calculations my Mountain Time (as a compromise) early in the next century. They won't care what New Yorkers think anymore than New Yorkers have, traditionally, listened to them (heck, a lot of them are transplanted New Yorkers).



------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[hansel]

Does anyone recall a mathematician who tried to prove that your single vote is more powerful in a system with an electoral college? I read an article on the web a while ago about him; his claim was that, mathematically, your odds of casting the swing vote were greater with the electoral college system, and casting the swing vote is the only time your vote really makes a difference.

[kunilou]

Let me say a word in defense of the Electoral College. If you think it's some dusty abstraction from the Founding Fathers, take a look at recent history.

Three times in the last 10 presidential elections (1960-1996)the electoral winner did not receive an absolute majority of the popular vote (1968 - Nixon vs. Humphrey and Wallace, and 1992 and 1996 - Clinton vs. the Republican and Perot both times). In two other elections (1960 - Kennedy-Nixon and 1976 - Carter-Ford)the popular vote was so close that the loser could have legitimately demanded a recount in one or more states.

That's five out of ten times in my lifetime alone where an election decided by popular vote alone could have been thrown into the House of Representatives or tied up in the courts. (Throw in 1948 and it's six times since World war II.) It could have been 1824 and 1876 all over again. I think the fact that real, live electors are on the job helps ensure that somehow, some way, the candidate who gets the most votes is going to wind up President.

[Omniscient]

Akatsukami as usual your response raises more questions.

1) Are the electors the senators and representatives? Or is there just a concurrent number of individuals.
2) If not who are they literally?
3) If the electors are party affiliated then when are they selected? It seems to me that the electors must be selected before the election and if they vote their party 99% of the time the actual election doesn't do anything. The selection of the electors is obviously the important issue, yet I (a fairly well educated, aware, intelligent person) have no idea when it occurs. Why is it never discussed by the canadates?
4) OK, NH and IA are important for primaries (selecting the canadates) but why is that so?

[Undead Dude]

Last time I voted for Prez (which was in Arizona), the electors were definitely on the ballot. It made the selections for the presidential candidates rather large, because they had to squeeze in these names in a small font. Incidentally, those names were definitely NOT incumbent senators/representatives. They were just unfamiliar names from my point of view.

[torq]

"It's been a long time since the Electoral vote didn't match the same result in the popular vote?" I'd say in the last two presidential elections, that's all it's done!

That's because you're using a different definition of "match" than the original poster did. Clinton got more popular votes in both those elections than anyone else did. He also got more electoral votes than anyone else did. Sounds like a match to me.

It's possible (in fact, it's happened) for a candidate to get FEWER popular votes than another candidate, but still get MORE electoral votes. This is, obviously, NOT a match.

Actually, there's nothing in federal law or the Constitution requiring that the electoral votes for a state agree with the popular vote for that state (there are two counterexamples cited on the Electoral College website mentioned above, and I think I remember hearing of at least one more).

Are the electors the senators and representatives?

No. Actually, the Constitution specifically forbids them from being electors.

If not who are they literally?

Well, they can't be anyone holding "an office of trust or profit under the United States". Other than that, I think that exactly how they're selected is left up to the individual states.

If the electors are party affiliated then when are they selected? It seems to me that the electors must be selected before the election and if they vote their party 99% of the time the actual election doesn't do anything.

Generally there will be a "slate" of nominees for each candidate, chosen by that candidate's political party. The nominees whose candidate wins the popular vote become the electors for that state.

They're most likely to vote for "their" candidate, but as noted above there have been times when they didn't. The electors don't vote until December, so there's a month (actually a little over) where there is a theoretical possibility of a surprise upset.

A couple of states (Maine and Nebraska) do things a little bit differently in that the slate of electors is not chosen statewide, but in the same way that Senators and Representatives are (two statewide, and one by each Congressional district).

The selection of the electors is obviously the important issue, yet I (a fairly well educated, aware, intelligent person) have no idea when it occurs. Why is it never discussed by the canadates?

Why would they want to? As you've no doubt noticed, this is a horrible mess. I doubt that a detailed explanation of how the electoral college works is going to cause John Q. Public to change his vote, so as far as they're concerned they'd be wasting their time to discuss it.

OK, NH and IA are important for primaries (selecting the canadates) but why is that so?

New Hampshire and Iowa have their primaries early in the process (I don't remember noticing Oklahoma having any particular importance in the primaries, so someone else will have to answer that question... is theirs also early?). It's mostly a matter of "momentum"; someone who wins in those states will get news coverage as "a winner", others won't (and may decide to drop out after seeing how pitifully small their support base truly is).

[AWB]

The election of 1876 is the centerpiece of every discussion of the Electoral College. The story: Hayes won the Electoral College by one vote, even though his opponent, Tilden, won the popular vote by nearly a quarter of a million votes. There were large questions about the legitimacy of the votes in four states, three in the South plus Oregon. Congress established an electoral commission to pass on the disputes. With 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats on the commission, every dispute was settled in the Republicans' favor by an 8-7 decision. So Hayes' one vote Electoral College victory was confirmed.

What the story doesn't explain is how Hayes could have won in the first place if Tilden had a quarter of a million votes more. Tilden's margin was not reduced by the disputes. If they had been resolved in his favor, his margin would have been even greater.

What put Hayes over the top were 3 Colorado electors appointed by the legislature without a popular vote ... all perfectly constitutional. Colorado was admitted to the union in August, 1876. The state legislature, to save money, decided not to hold a presidential election (true story!) They simply appointed electors who voted for Hayes. So what put Hayes over the top were 3 electors not chosen by the public. This was all perfectly constitutional, and it did not figure in the controversy over disputed electoral votes.

Was it just a coincidence that Colorado was admitted to the union right before the closest electoral vote in history? Probably not. Colorado was the only state admitted to the Union between 1867 and 1889. According to Daniel Boorstin, Congress wanted to hold on to the patronage jobs in the territories as long as they could. So admitting a state to the union was quite an extraordinary event, and perhaps the expectation of three additional Republican electors was a motivating factor.

[AWB]

The above was from Avagara Productions

Avagara Productions
Electoral College Webzine

[Omniscient]

Sorry it should read

"Okay, NH and IA...."

hee hee

[Akatsukami]

torq answered Omniscient's second round of questions, at least as well (if not better) than I could have. I'll only pick a couple of nits.


Omniscient asks:

The selection of the electors is obviously the important issue, yet I (a fairly well educated, aware, intelligent person) have no idea when it occurs. Why is it never discussed by the canadates?

When it occurs? Almost certainly your state party conventions (not a pleonasm, necessarily). Why haven't you heard of it? Well, without challenging your education, intelligence, or awareness...who was the losing candidate for state attorney general in the last general election?

torq says:

New Hampshire and Iowa have their primaries early in the process

I think that Iowa still holds party caucuses (although, not being a resident of Iowa, I could easily be wrong).

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[jayron 32]

1) Are the electors the senators and representatives? Or is there just a concurrent number of
individuals.
2) If not who are they literally?
3) If the electors are party affiliated then when are they selected?

Actually, the rules stipulate that electors cannot be officeholders. I had a friend who actually was an elector. They are officially chosen by the parties at the state party conventions, but really its just a rubber stamp at that point. You get to be an elector generally if you are an active member of your party in your state. My friend worked on the campaign of an influential Ohio State Rep., and as a reward for his hard work he was selected as an elector in 1984. Unfortunately, he was selected as an elector for Mondale and so never got to cast his vote, Ohio (and damn near the rest of the nation) giving their votes to Reagan. BTW, he was 19 at the time and a chemical engineering student at Dayton College. So truly ANYONE can be an elector. I know it wasn't directly asked, but the electors cast their ballot sometime in December or early January (IIRC). The election of of 1872 is a facinating case summary of what happens when the candidate dies after the popular election, but before the electoral one. Fortunately the candidate (Horace Greeley) hadn't enough electoral votes to win anyways, but the 66 votes he did get were scattered among a bunch of candidates, making Grant out to be a bigger winner than he was.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"One pill makes you taller, and one pill makes you small, but the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all"
-- Jefferson Airplane White Rabbit (Slick, G. 1966)

[Monty]

Jayron:

You seem to think the popular vote and the elctoral vote are inextricably linked. They're not--they have nothing to do with each other legally. Now as an exercise in observed behaviour, maybe. But the popular vote, in fact, and under the Constitution, does not drive the electoral vote.

[Omniscient]

God damn you people, are you inentionally trying to be vague and talk over my head?

Akatsukami, what the hell does "not a pleonasm, necessarily" mean. Do you mean plenum???

OK, the electoral college as I gather works as such. At each states' political parties' conventions the parties select a group of people to be the electors for their party in that state, the number being equal to that states number of electoral votes. Then the popular election takes place, and the canadate who takes the popular vote's party's electors then get the opportunity to vote a month later. And these electors can vote for anyone they choose, but usually vote for the party canadate. Now under this system the canadate who takes the majority of the popular vote will likely take the vast majority of that states electoral vote, but depending on a few rogue electors the could take 51 out of 54 vote in that state. Did I miss anything?

[jayron 32]

Jayron:

You seem to think the popular vote and the elctoral vote are inextricably linked. They're not--they
have nothing to do with each other legally. Now as an exercise in observed behaviour, maybe. But the
popular vote, in fact, and under the Constitution, does not drive the electoral vote.

What are you talking about? Where in my post did I ever indicate that electoral vote was linked in any way to the popular vote. My message faithfully reported on the electoral process exactly as it runs, and exactly as it is intended to run.

I said my friend was chosen as an elector by the Democratic Party in 1984 at the Ohio State Democratic Convention. Since the popular vote in Ohio chose Reagan that year (or rather, Reagan's electors) he didn't get to become an actual elector. Some guy who kissed some Republican ass in Ohio got to do that. But that guy was no more bound to vote for Reagan than my friend would have been to vote for Mondale should he have been selected by the popular election. The electors are chosen by the parties before the November elections, it is at those elections where it is chosen which electors get to sit in the Electoral College and vote for the president. Many, but not all states, even require the electors names to be listed on the ballots since that is truth in advertising: You are voting for which electors you want to send to the electoral college, not a) who you want for president or b) how you think the electors should vote.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"One pill makes you taller, and one pill makes you small, but the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all"
-- Jefferson Airplane White Rabbit (Slick, G. 1966)

[BobT]

When I looked at the names of the 54 California electors for 1996, I noticed that helped to be related to be a member of Congress. I saw a Capps, Eshoo, and a Pelosi in the group.

One of my biggest hopes is to be a presidential elector. It seems like an exclusive club.

However, I wonder if I would have to pay my own way to Sacramento to cast the vote.

[Akatsukami]

Omniscient asks:

Akatsukami, what the hell does "not a pleonasm, necessarily" mean. Do you mean plenum???

Nope, "pleonasm". It means "redunancy".


Conjoining the words "party" and "convention" in a single phrase would seem to be gilding the lily (and, yes, I know that that's a misquotation from King John). But, whilst national political conventions occasionally manage an good floor fight (D-1948), good street fight (D-1968), or witty remark (R-1988), most of the time the signs, songs, and funny hats are there to disguise the fact that they're somewhat less interesting that soccer matches.



------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[ConMan]

My knock against the Electoral College is just what has been discussed earlier - it does not reflect the popular vote. Nowadays candidates just concentrate on the big ticket electoral states of TX, FL, CA, NY & MI and ignore the smaller fish. I say we just tweak it a little bit. I suggest that the candidates receive the same percentage of Electoral votes from a state as their percentage of the popular vote from that same state. This winner-takes-all crap is all worng! In this way the candidates would have to work for every little vote they receive and truly reflect the voice of the people. Also, everyone's vote would truly "count". I believe this is where the "my-vote-doesn't-count" attitude stems from today. Your vote would directly affect the popular vote % and therefore the number of Electoral votes a candidate would receive. No more west coast low voter turnout because your vote would decide the race instead of it being predetermined by the time your polls close because as I mentioned the big electoral vote states earlier, most of them are 2 and 3 hours ahead of the last big ticket state: CA.

As far as holidays/days off on electional day, I just know the liquor stores are closed until the voting polls are closed - at least here in NC.

I usually vote out the incumbents anyway, unless there are really a couple of losers running (WIMP vs. SHRIMP '88?) - my own little way of setting term limits.

------------------
"Quoth the Raven, 'Nevermore.'"
E A Poe

[BobT]

The Electoral College was, at first, designed, with the idea that Congress would end up choosing the President because no one would get a majority.
The Constitution originally provided that the top 5 candidates would end up being voted on in the House.
Since the House was voted on by the people (at least the rich, white male people), it was supposed to be more responsive to the people's needs.
Once parties crept up and there were the unpleasant vice-presidencies of Jefferson and Burr, the Consitution was changed so separate votes were cast for Pres and Veep and only the top 3 candidates would be voted on in Congress.
The only candidate who got the short end of that deal was Henry Clay who finished fourth in 1824 (behind Crawford whom I believed had been incapicitated by a stroke and Adams and Jackson).
Adams ended up winning despite finishing second in both the popular and the electoral vote.

[Rich Barr]

[[Nowadays candidates just concentrate on the big ticket electoral states of TX, FL, CA, NY & MI and ignore the smaller fish.]]

To be specific, a candidate can win 11 states' electoral votes and be elected president, even without a single vote from another state. These states, and their current electoral votes (ie. the votes as they with be for the election of 2000) are:

California--54
New York--33
Texas--32
Florida--25
Pennsylvania--23
Illinois--22
Ohio--21
Michigan--18
New Jersey--15
North Carolina--14
Georgia--13

TOTAL--270

Regarding the idea of having Election Day as a national holiday, I personally doubt it would increase voter turnout that much. I was an officer of a political party for several years, and I can assure you that most of the people who don't vote aren't so busy that time was the issue. A lot of them simply don't care enough to bother--having the day off wouldn't make a bit of difference. (And presidential elections have very large turnouts compared to most state and local elections, unless there's something especially controversial going on.)

If you really want to get people to vote, enact a reverse poll tax--a tax assessed on every citizen age 18 or older, which is then waived upon proof of voting in the general election. (This isn't my idea, by the way, but I can't remember where I came across it.)

On the other hand...not bothering to go to the polls can be seen as a passive vote in favor of whoever wins. Maybe we should leave the abstainers alone and be content that our own votes swing that much more weight.

Personally, I'd eliminate the ELECTORS but keep the Electoral College--make the popular vote binding on the EC. Award the votes by Congressional district--the candidate with a plurality in the district gets that electoral vote--with the two votes representing the Senators going to the winner of a plurality statewide. I'd also add a national electoral vote--say 63 votes, which would bring the Electoral total to 601--which would be awarded to the winner of a plurality nationwide. If nothing else, this would mean that every person who bothered to vote for president would be doing so in three different ways--for the district, for the state, and for the nation.

------------------
Nature abhors a vacuum, which means there are a lot of people whose brains are in mortal peril.

[Monty]

Jayron: no malice aforethought. (Sorry about the movie title.)

I've a pet peeve with the popular (mis)conception of how the government in these United States is selected. Part of that peeve is in descriptions such as yours above.

Whilst I hold no doubt about your friend being an Elector; I, however, do not discount out of hand the validity of a particular party selecting him as the Elector. The Constitution states that the Legislatures of the Separate States will provide for the choosing of the Electors in any manner of their choosing. "Thier" obviously referring to the Legislature.

As it is, in no state does a particular party actually select the Electors; it merely advances a slate of Electors.

Even if the entire voting population selected those Electors, the Electors are only bound by their consience and the two Constitutional restrictions placed on their choice.

I think you and I are on the same side of this issue here.

To tell you the truth, I'm betting that the next popular election and Electoral election will be widely divergent.

And what fun the fallout will be!

Cheers!
-Chip

[BobT]

Just how will the popular and electoral votes vary wildly? That would require one of two things:
1) A very strong third party candidate or
2) A divisive issue that turns one of the two parties into a sectional party (like the Democrats in 1888)

I don't see #2 on the horizon, so it's more likely that #1 would occur. Let's assume that we get the scintillating Bush-Gore matchup. If a 3rd party candidate, presumably the Reform Party candidate can make a respectable showing, then you could get some breakdown like 40%-35%-25% I suppose.
That assumes that a Reform Party candidate will do better than Perot did in the last two elections.

Since the Electoral College is winner-take-all for all practical purposes, I suppose that would be the disparity.

[Monty]

You left out:

3) The Electors vote their conscience, completely disregarding the result of the so-called popular vote.

Oh, I guess that one vote Ronald Reagan got the election before he declared he was running wasn't really a vote?

Who knows, maybe a goodly number of Electors will just vote for their Cousin Bob just to throw a wrench into the works. Or to make a political statement.

[John W. Kennedy]

The Electoral College was created because the leaders at the time assumed that the general populace was not educated enough to vote for the president.

A bit of an urban myth, actually. Some feared this, but the real consideration was that the US was, by a huge ratio, larger than any successful republic in history. They expected a pure popular election to result in a dozen or more minority candidates, all nationally unknown.

The introduction of political parties threw off everyone's calculations.


------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Boris B]

kunilou

I think the fact that real, live electors are on the job helps ensure that somehow, some way, the candidate who gets the most votes is going to wind up President

This seems like a lot of trouble to go through to create the same result as a direct first-past-the-post contest. Why not just formalize a direct vote with a simple plurality rule? I'm not in favor of this, but you might be.

The whole electoral college question seems like it could be cleared up a lot with a little comparative politics. Very few countries have direct, first-past-the-post Presidential elections. Most provide for a direct runoff if no candidate wins a majority of the popular vote. Presidential electors are only used in a few countries (Germany, Argentina, and Italy), and only in Argentina is this an executive President.

A direct majoritarian system is also used in Israel to elect the Prime Minister.

I don't see why this plan hasn't gotten more support in the United States. Probably because it is unfamiliar, and for some reason gasp at the concept of a runoff. Some people say the 50% threshhold is way too high, since this result is not guaranteed and would be rare in a multi-candidate election. This is why weird compromises are proposed: Jimmy Carter advocated direct election, with a runoff if no one received more than 40% of the vote.

What is so bad about a runoff, I don't know. If it were held a few weeks after the first round (which could be held earlier if desired), then yes, it might extend the 18-month campaign season by a few weeks. Big deal.

Yes, this system would treat minor parties more fairly. Who knows how many votes other candidates would get if people weren't always afraid of the sub-majority election of their worst enemy? In fact, I don't even think the distinction between major and minor parties would exist under this system. Who knew which candidates would make it into the run off in the last French Presidential election?

Why don't we join France, Israel, Finland, Peru, and a bunch of other countries in choosing our chief executive this way? Because confusion and demoralization about the electoral college is as American as apple pie.

[VileOrb]

What do you think of the idea of making election day a national halfday holiday? This would reduce the number of people who would use it as an excuse to go to the mountains. I don't think we need a whole day to vote and I think it would be interesting to have a half day holiday. The oddness of it might draw further attention to it, which would be a good thing.

------------------
If men had wings,
and bore black feathers,
few of them would be clever enough to be crows.

- Rev. Henry Ward Beecher