Ok, I did searches and came up empty, so here goes:
The electoral college decides who the next US President will be. Why bother having a popular vote? And why push people to go out and vote? I just heard on CNN that it is possible for the popular vote to go to Bush, but the electoral college vote could go to Gore, making Gore the next President. In the case of a tie in the electoral college, the House of Representatives decides. So why do we need to vote for the President when it seems to me, the popular vote doesn’t really decide anything?
I feel like I’m missing something here, but I can’t put my finger on it.
Because in practice the people in the electoral colleage are chosen by the popular vote and end up voting the way the popular vote dictates. If all of them reversed course and voted for a different candidate, there would be a large movement in the USA to dispense with the electoral college or change the rules under which they cast their vote (that’s my opinion.)
The electoral college votes do not mirror exactly the state population distribution (I assume, since a popular vote can under very unusual circumstances fail to translate into an electoral college winning vote), but the situation is so rare that it’s not considered to be a big problem.
Before I get called on it, I misspoke. The main reason a candidate can win the popular vote an lose the electoral vote is because of the “winner takes all” character of electoral votes in most (if not all) states.
I don’t know of any reason to continue with the electoral college except that it gives low-level political hacks a chance to feel important, and gives everybody a big spectacle to watch on election night.
Maybe that’s it.
We certainly have the technology these days to elect a candidate by ‘popular’ (or least unpopular) vote.
I understand the basis for the electoral college, some people just don’t care enough to study the issues before voting and are easily swayed by the political ads. (I’m reminded of an Eddie Murphy bit about guys getting drunk and voting for Jesse Jackson as a joke only to find out the next day, “He fucking won?!”)
But my quesiton is, since the electoral college picks the President, does my vote really matter? Especially since the college can go against the popular vote (and hasn’t this happened already?). What difference does my vote make if it’s left to the electoral college anyway? (And I’m not referring to Senate or Representatives, just the Pres) Does the electoral college look at the popular vote before casting their votes, thereby having some heads-up of what the people want? Or are there votes cast at the same time as the popular votes giving them no idea if they are supporting are opposing the popular vote?
There have been several informative threads about the electoral college in the last few days- almost every question asked here has already been discussed extensively.
The electoral college votes weeks after the popular vote, generally mirroring the popular vote. There are subtle differences in having the college, given the winner-take-all effects of winning states. This makes it different than a popular vote. Whether it’s better or worse in general (for each voter, each state, or the nation or a whole), or makes an individual vote more powerful, has been discussed in recent threads.
Not only is how the College votes dependent on the popular vote, but who the College is also depends on you and me. If the majority of the people in California vote for gore, then the electors from California will all be Gore supporters, and will presumably vote for him. They’re not required to vote according to their party pledges, and in fact there have been a few cases in history of an elector not voting his pledge, but there’s never been a case where that changed the outcome.
The real way an individual wields power is not by voting per se, but by leveraging votes. That is to say, trying to get people who are voting to agree with you, and trying to get people who agree with you to vote. Special interest groups are significant in this: For nstance, the NRA tells its members to vote against gun control. Many members agree and do so, and the net result is a significant number of votes, which might turn an election.
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:
Monarchies
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.
Suppose the electoral college vote winds up evenly tied, except for one vote. One of the electors decides to be a wise guy and casts the opposite vote from what his state’s popular vote had said, thereby throwing the election to the “wrong” candidate.
Not in Michigan. He’s REQUIRED by law to vote for the way the state has decided. Only during a re-vote would my state law allow him to vote any other way. I’m pretty sure at least some other states have similar laws.
For the record, I’m firmly in favor of the EC. Pure democracies are evil. It took Mexico 71 years (!!!) to overcome their “pure” democracy this past July (okay, this is debatable, let’s just save it for the future).
I am in favor of districting the vote (in Michigan). I certainly don’t thinks it’s fair that Michigan give all of its votes to Gore just because he may have a slight edge over the better candidate. However, this is a state issue and is none of the business of the federales.
ishmintingas brings up the case of the “faithless elector”. Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the popular vote winner. However, no one has ever been prosecuted for one and it is unclear whether such laws are enforceable.
If there were such an elector who decided to switch his/her pledge in an election this close, there would be serious repercussions for that person. Electors are usually the most loyal party members and not prone to such shenanigans.
Would you want to be the one person who decided the presidential election?
The elector would be in deep trouble, but would his vote be invalidated? The Supreme Court would inevitably have to decide it - I would expect the petition to be filed immediately.
In answer to the OP, a very good reason for voting is the fact that while the Presidential election may take up the main news of this election, it’s not the ONLY news.
Here in Austin, TX, we’re voting on several local issue that will carry this city into the next century. We have the issue of light rail and several other bond issues to deal with. We’re also voting on several state assembly people AND US Representatives and Senators.
All of these officials are popularly elected and have far more influence in our lives that the President. While the President gets the main news at night, it’s your city alderman or state legislator who raises or lowers the local taxes that effect you directly. You can also DIRECTLY influence these people, either thru letters or even gasp a face-to-face meeting.
And these elections CAN be influenced by just a few hundred votes, of which yours is counted.
So, yes, get out and vote. It’s just not the Presidency we’re deciding here.
