I read a lengthy explanation on the Electoral College, and my question is, still, why? Why isn’t the President elected by popular vote? And, why only that office? Was there such dishonesty in past elections, that this way of voting made it more honest? I try, but, I just don’t get it.
At the time it was thought that the great unwashed masses were not mentally capable of the effort. The Electorial College was, in theory, a council of wise elders. They were elected to do the thinking for us. Roughly speaking.
Sorry, you must have missed the previous one thousand or so threads on this topic.
The electoral college system has ALWAYS been the method of choosing the president in the U.S.
As far back as 1787. It was slightly tweaked after the 1800 election, but the procedures have not varied much since then.
I’m sure it’s someplace in the zillions of threads, but …
Remember that the US government was concieved as a Federal system with a lot of power remaining with the states. As the system was set up, it was up to the states to pick electors any way they wanted to, which appeased states apprehensive of a central government. As it turned out, what the states did after the first few presidencies was simply allow their citizens to elect the electors in some fashion, eventually devolving into voting on boards of electors pledged to a given party’s candidate. A couple states DO have means of splitting their electoral vote by allowing the election of mixed electors.
A document cpncerning the historical basis and evolution (warning - pdf):
This is a commonly given explanation and it is also false. There was no concern for the “great unwashed masses” because it was never expected that there would be any popular vote for the office at all. In fact, the popular vote for Electors was not common until the mid-19th century, and even then it wasn’t universal. Electors were chosen by state legislatures.
The EC, like most of the Constitution, was designed as a compromise between those who wanted the President elected directly by the House of Representatives (as in a parliamentary system), those who wanted him chosen by the Senate, and those who wanted him elected by the state governments. The College got Congress out of the question, and gave the less populous states a slight edge that they didn’t have in the fully proportional House, thereby generally satisfying most everyone.
I wonder whether the OP is asking why the constitution was originally setup that way, or why we haven’t yet changed the constitution.
US Senators were not directly elected by the people in any state until 1900 or so and were not required to be until the 17th amendment was adopted in 1913.
Simply put, we are the United States Of America. We vote as States, much like Lodge members vote on who the next President of the Lyons Club is going to be.
Even simpler put, it is the method on how to hold an Election in the US, as dictated by our Constitution.
It also minimizes, notice I did not say eliminates, weird mathematical anomalies.
The exception is that some States have the option to split their Electoral Votes based on the popular vote of that State. I don’t think that this has ever happened, though. Why are some States different than others? Each State has its own Constitution. The mechanics of an Election are left to the individual States, therefore, you have different methods of voting, etc.
Another wild card is that it is the Electors that cast the vote the the Electoral College. There is nothing prohibiting them from casting their Electoral Vote for the losing Candidate, but it will ensure their political career is at an end.
When you think about it, U.S. citizens do not directly vote on very many things. The president and vice president are elected by the EC. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president, then approved by Congress. All federal laws are voted on by Congress, not you. And the president appoints his cabinet.
You directly vote for your senators and representatives, plus a few other state and local offices & positions (state judges, sheriff, etc.) And on occasion you’ll vote for a law or referendum. Other than that, you leave it up to others to make the Big Decisions[sup]TM[/sup]. This is the way it was designed. And quite frankly, it’s a good design…
Contary to poular belief, we are a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Indeed a good design
Please define Democracy in a way that does not exclude every single nation in the world.
AFAIK there currently aren’t any democratic nations.
According to Merriam-Webster, there is more than one definition of democracy:
It actually increases the power of a voter in most elections.
Consider what would happen if there were a direct popular plurality vote. The easiest way for a candidate to build a plurality would be to appeal to the issues facing urban and near-urban voters. The issues important in states which are predominantly rural would get no attention whatsoever since they just don’t matter as much as where the population density “per issue” is higher. As much as I’d like this election to be decided by New York and Los Angeles, it’s not a great idea in general.
As an analogy, consider the 1960 World Series: The Yankees got over twice as many runs as the Pirates (55-27), but mostly in three blowouts (16-3, 10-0, 12-0). The important thing is not getting the most points, but getting them consistently across a number of games (states). In fact, this is almost exactly how Cleveland (Grover) lost in 1888: losing the five largest games by close margins even though he got more points (votes) overall.
Please explain this statement. I’ve heard it before, and I’ve never understood what people meant. Maybe with your mathematical skills you can clear this up, but it seems like if there’s one decision to make, and it’s divided among a certain number of people, then the total amount of “power” to be allocated is not variable. So for every voter in Ohio or Florida that it empowers, there’s more in California and New York that have little to no influence on the election.
So it’s not like it increases each voter’s power. It only increases the power of the people specially protected by it - in our country, the rural people.
What I mean is that it works to ensure that all issues must be considered. Really the best resource is the work of Alan Natapoff.
No, it increases everyone’s power, mathematically speaking.
Imagine that there’s 100 million voters, all voting for the national office. How much does your vote count?
Now imagine that the 50 states are equally populous, with 2 million voters per state. Each state holds its own election for the POTUS, giving the winner of the state election the full backing of the state. Now how much power do you have? 50 times as much as the single, popular vote.
Now imagine each state is broken into 100 districts of 20,000 voters each. Each district holds its own election for POTUS, and the popular winner gets the full backing of the district in the state election. Now how much power do you have?
In the first example, what are the odds that your one vote will affect the outcome amidst 100 million other votes? Zero.
In the second example, what are the odds that your one vote will affect the outcome amidst 2 million other votes? Vanishingly small.
In the third example, what are the odds that your one vote will affect the outcome amidst 20 thousand other votes? Very small, but not disregardable. And if you turn this election of 20,000 by virtue of your vote, it can have major impact on the state’s election, which in turn can have a major impact on the national election. You have nowhere near that kind of power in a nationwide popular vote.
That’s the mechanism by which the EC mathematically increases the voting power of every single voter. Now, in the real world, with states having varied populations, there are other factors that affect voting power. That is a completely separate issue. It would be interesting to see a calculation that could determine whether the devaluing of a popuolous-state voter’s power is offset by the Natapoff effect.
I’m such a fan of the EC that I’d like to see states implement a district-based EC for the state votes. That would give me some real power.
The more I think about this concept, the more I like it. I also like the fact that urban area votes are devalued by the EC.
Let’s say my district EC were in effect. That would mean that I could conceivably do my own campaigning in my congressional district and have a tangible effect. If I convinced 500 voters to change their mind in a statewide election, it doesn’t much matter. Those same 500 voters in a district could turn the tide, and if that entire district voted as a bloc in the state election, that would mean that I had real power. And I like the concept of citizen being able to avail themselevs of real power.
But then I think, wow, how much easier would it be to campaign in this scenario if I lived in a large city? Imagine being able to knock on 500 doors without even leaving your building? As opposed to a campaigner in Montana who might require several tanks of gas to accomplish the same feat. The word of mouth effect is greatly exaggerated in urban settings, where a single citizen can reach so many more voters without spending any money, as opposed to rural locations where money is required for travel. Thus, voters in urban areas have more actual power – defined as the ability to influence elections – than those in rural settings. Many more people would hear my voice at Times Square than a desolate cornfield, and if mine were a convincing voice…
In that sense, it is good that the EC gives a power boost to the less populous states. It curtails the advantage that activist citizens in urban areas have over activist citizens in rural areas. Even if your only activist tactic is to put a sign in your yard, how many more people will see that sign in a densely populated area?
Why not take it to the logical extreme? Have 18 levels of “Electoral College”, with each taking votes from the three divisions below it. In other words, place all the people at the leaves of a trinary branching tree, with each branch voting according to the majority of its sub-branches.
Of course, this depends on the definition of “power” as “the chance that a particular individual would decide the election”, which is not necessarily the most useful definition. Suppose, for instance, that I agree 100% with Candidate A’s policies. Even if I don’t vote at all, if Candidate A gets elected, then all of the policies I want will be put into place. In that case, it could be argued that I have a great deal of power, since what I want to happen does happen. But by this definition, power is a zero-sum game.
And even if one does accept the “swaying the election” definition of power, is it something desireable? For one vote to swing the election requires that the margin be a single vote. To say that the Electoral College increases power is to say that it increases the chance of a single-vote margin. After all of the hair-pulling we saw in Florida in 2000 over a margin of a few hundred votes, would we really want a single vote margin?
I’m not completely following this paragraph, although I’m pretty sure it is a textbook example of a strawman argument.
Elections also happen to be zero-sum games, so I don’t really consider that a drawback.
That is exactly what Natapoff demonstrates; the EC does indeed increase the chance of a single-vote margin, and this effectively increases individual voting power. Personally, I am all for that. The more power in the hands of voters the better as ar as I’m concerned. Clearly you do not like the idea, but that’s cool. The current system is squarely in the middle of the systems we’d ideally have. Thus, it’s a fair compromise. Not necessarily a fair compromise for the citizens of the US as a whole, but a fair compromise for me and you.
Wow. I never thought of it in that light. . . Thank you!
I thank you for putting it in such context. That simple arguement, coupled with the fact that the population’s voters votes go towards a state electure of EC members puts a lot of things in good perspective. Especially for a guy like myself who’se bounced from state to state and has a “feeble but able” grasp of grassroots politics.
Mathochist, thank you!
Tripler
None of it will matter when me and my progeny overthrow the world’s governments, but, historical knowledge is good.