I am sorry I knew this once but I forgot. Would somebody please explain it to me again since this is proper season to know why? Seems like a popular vote would be better to me.
You can read up on the electoral college at msn Encarta.
maybe a popular vote would be better, but this is a republic, not a democracy. When they wrote the constitution, it was impractical for the entire nation to vote at once - not only was it tough to administer and honestly count the votes, but there was a reluctance to make government too direct. The founding fathers were all educated in the classics, and they knew what happened to ancient greece and rome when the masses took over. The electoral college adds a layer of responsible elected officials to tone down the wild urges of us rabble, and presents a smaller number to measure, count, and control. In theory they could vote for anyone, now they are committed to the party ticket. The constitution counts their votes, not the popular vote. It is possible, I believe, to have fewer popular votes but win the magic 270 electoral college votes and become president. Besides, if we went to popular votes Dave Letterman and Oprah would decide who is the next pres.
Another reason for the Electoral College is to prevent power from shifting too much to the most populous states. Since a state gets as many votes as it has members in Congress, they end up with two more than they’d have on population alone. So Wyoming isn’t very powerful, but more so than they might be.
We now have the ability to accurately count every vote, so maybe a purely popular election would be a good idea. But maybe it should be weighted the same way the electoral vote is.
Thanks.
Part of the original idea was that there weren’t supposed to be any political parties, and that the best man overall would win. Thus, in the original design, the man with the second largest number of votes was vice president.
This has since been changed.
Another part of the original design was the importance of the states: Senators were elected by their state legislatures, not by the people. So having electors from each state choose the President was consistent with this design.
This was part of the compromise the Constitution represented: the powers of the states were far more circumscribed than they were under the original Articles of Confederation, but in return they were given a large say in who was to represent them in the Federal government and in who would lead it.
The original design was extremely indirect: the Senate and the President together decide on judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, which is still true today. So in the original design, the Supreme Court was two layers removed from the people, and after that they’re completely insulated, of course, since they’re appointed for life.
“Another reason for the Electoral College is to prevent power from shifting too much to the most populous states.”
Well, why count by states? A vote could easily be counted by sheer numbers, regardless of where the voter lives. A true popular vote.
I learned recently that Australia seems to have it right. Voting is mandatory, so everyone gets interested and involved. (Non voters pay a fine.) And the campaign period is much shorter, which keeps the boredom level down. And lastly, they can rate their votes.
For example, I could vote for Ralph Nader if I so chose, without worry that my vote would be wasted, because I could then put Al Gore down as second choice, and GW as my distant last choice. And all the votes are counted depending on each voter’s preferred rank.
This seems MUCH more fair and accurate than our current system.
Well, here’s a good reason. The Cleveland & Harrison presidential race of 1888:
Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by 90,596 votes (out of 11,383,320 votes cast). But he lost the electoral college vote. Why?
Cleveland had campaigned heavily on lowering tariffs, which the South favored, but the North did not. In six southern states, this gave him percentages of 67-82%. By popular votes, he got 686,303 total votes versus Harrison’s 260,771.
But the tariff issue also turned away reform-minded Republicans in the North, so he lost both popular and electoral votes there. Harrison won these states with popular votes between 50-60%, except for one, Vermont, where he won with 71% of the votes.
So Harrison’s broader appeal whittled Cleveland’s 426,000 vote surplus from the South down to 90,000.
So focusing on a single region’s concerns is not going to win the White House.
However, if as a candidate you promised lower taxes to citizens who lived within 50 miles of an ocean or the Great Lakes (and if the people bought it), you might just win both popular and electoral votes, as our most populous states (and the populations within) are coastal.
That sounds like a great system, except I think I might want to leave that third box blank.
I think you’re being very optimistic regarding how well and accurate a nationwide election count can be done.
Here’s a second question- what happens when, in our ‘popular vote alone’ election, Bush beats Gore by 5,000 votes? Obviously, we’ll want to double-check the vote tallies, but we’ll have to double-check all of the vote tallies because those votes could come from anywhere. In our current system, we would just have to investigate the votes in particular states that were close. So it’s an easier system to deal with and check.
I think you’re drawing a conclusion here that doesn’t necessarily fit; voting being mandatory does not necessarily make people interested. Or are you telling me that people aren’t excited about Bush and/or Gore because they just aren’t interested in politics?
I’d also state that I’m happier living in a society where the people who vote are the people who give a damn, rather than everyone voting whether or not they care who wins.
So does my vote count or not?
Originally posted by AWB
I hear this asserted often enough that I suppose I am going to have to make a habit of refuting it. Harrison won this election because of his concentrated regional appeal; he was not competitive in Cleveland’s territory, but Cleveland was competitive in Harrison. Cleveland had much broader appeal but it didn’t help him because of the deplorable distortions created by the electoral college. Harrison had no chance at all of winning several states, and some people feel he should be rewarded for that reason.
Originally posted by **jwg **
The two are by no means mutually exclusive. A republic is a type of state - pretty much any state without a king. How democratic the republic is, is a completely different question.
I can’t tell how serious you are about this part. Do you really think electors make decisions? I mean, I don’t understand how a group of people who are committed to the party ticket is going to have anything to do with whether or not Dave Letterman and/or Oprah are on that ticket.
Well it depends. If you vote for the person who wins your state you vote counts. So if you vote for Al Gore and you live in Oklahoma you probably didn’t him any good.
I’m for abandoning the electoral college because of the poor voter turnout. If one person votes in New York for Al Gore then Al wins all of the electoral college votes for NY. The candidates now concentrate on the ‘important’ states with many electoral votes instead of concentrating on all voters. How many campain stops are they making in states like Oklahoma and Kansas. Voter turnout in CA is low becasue the election is decided before they get off work. (Now they blackout the results until later in the evening) But I feel that the electoral college keeps people from going to the polls. If you know your candidate won’t win your state what is the point? If the election is over what is the point?
Best analogy I ever heard about the electoral college is that it is like the world series–it is not enough to have the most runs, you have to win the most games. Granted, in a presidential election some games count more than others. The baseball analogy, and some rather more sophisticated math which showsthat the electoral college gives move power to voters comes from an article in Discover Magazine called “Math Against Tyranny” by Will Hively. If you go to http://www.discover.com and search the archive you can find it. Here is a snippet:
About your vote counting: the number of votes a canidate gets is signifigant. A canidate who squeaks through has less real authority than a canidate who wins by a landside.
“I think you’re being very optimistic regarding how well and accurate a nationwide election count can be done… we’ll have to double-check all of the vote tallies because those votes could come from anywhere. In our current system, we would just have to investigate the votes in particular states that were close. So it’s an easier system to deal with and check.”
Elections are electronic for the most part nowadays. And will almost certainly be available online within the next 4 years (some states are already doing this for primaries). So I think accurate numbers ARE possible, and mere “easy vs. more difficult” is not a good excuse for a substandard voting system, IMO.
“I think you’re drawing a conclusion here that doesn’t necessarily fit; voting being mandatory does not necessarily make people interested. Or are you telling me that people aren’t excited about Bush and/or Gore because they just aren’t interested in politics?”
Sorry, didn’t explain. The Australian information came from an Australian guy I was interviewing for a documentary. He claimed (and yes, he could be wrong or exaggerating) that because the voting was mandatory, people in his country seemed to take it much more seriously than we do here.
The interviews we did with US citizens seemed to make his point that much more solid. Many younger Americans (early 20’s, same age as the Australian interviewee) were extremely apathetic about voting and the election process in general. They didn’t think their vote counted at all in the larger elections, and didn’t care or follow what was going on. And this view was similiar amongst ALMOST all the early-20 voters we spoke to. Most of them simply planned on not voting.
I’d also state that I’m happier living in a society where the people who vote are the people who give a damn, rather than everyone voting whether or not they care who wins.
I give a damn. And I frequently do not vote. When I do vote, it is usually for 3rd party runners who, honestly, don’t have a chance at winning, so I do feel my vote is absolutely wasted. In other words, why bother? Sure, we can get into a philosophical debate about the importance of every vote, but the fact is, if I vote for the Libertarian or Green or other indie party this election, I am not voting for a candidate with any shot of winning, and it’s basically just one more vote that Al Gore would lose.
I’d be voting for Bush in essense, which I refuse to do. The Australians, while far from having a perfect system, do seem to have a system that is more accurate than ours. And where the sense of responsibility just might have an effect on people’s desire to vote appropriately.