Help me understand the Electoral process in America

[Bhaisahab]

I don't get this electoral college business. I always thought the electorate votes on the one-person-one-vote principle and the candidate with the most votes wins the presidency. Now I hear about the importance of electoral colleges. What's that about? Anybody have the patience to explain that for international DUers?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. One person one vote, unless....

you are black...
are in a swing state...
use absintee ballot...
use electronic voting...
are a democrat...

in which case you don't get a vote.

[shraby]

3. Each state is allowed a certain number

of electoral votes. If a candidate gets the majority of the popular vote in a state, the electoral votes go to that candidate.

There is a delegate for each electoral vote and that delegate is supposed to cast his vote for the candidate who won in his/her state, although if he/she wants to, the vote can go to the other candidate, but it is extremely rare that this happens.

At least that's the way I understand it.

[Syrinx]

2. here's a simple version

Each state has a many electoral votes as they have representatives and Senators. So if a candidate wins the electoral vote in a particular state, that candidate gets that states' electoral votes. But there's no legal requirement for an elector to actually vote according to their state's popular vote. It's time to get this changed, imo.

[Wwagsthedog]

5. Agree with the need for change but not limited to the EC.

Add 3 from DC for a total of 538 electors.

[serryjw]

7. EXCEPT in Maine and Nebraska

that have proportional representation....CO has it on the ballot for November and IF it passes will effect this election.



This may help....

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question472.htm

[Doohickie]

13. Hey, cool.....

I was a frat brother of the guy who started HowStuffWorks..... http://www.marshallbrain.com/

[liberalpragmatist]

4. Here's the rough explanation

The electoral college is comprised of 538 seats. Each state receives as many seats in the electoral college as is equal to their congressional representation. Since each state automatically has 2 seats in the Senate, every state has at least 3 electoral votes (EV). DC also has 3 electoral votes, although it has no congressional representation. Since Congress has 535 members (435 House, 100 senate), DC's makes it 538.

The state legislatures are, under the Constitution, allowed to deliver their electoral votes however they want. These days, all states use the popular vote (although of course, Florida was an exception last time). All but two states award EVERY electoral vote to the person who wins the most votes in that state - winner-takes-all. The exceptions are Nebraska and Maine, which give each candidate an electoral vote for however-many house districts they win, plus an additional two to the person who wins a plurality in the whole state.

In essence, the states vote for President, not the people - it's an indirect thing.

[dammit905]

6. hhhmm...

That other reply wasn't very helpful. The electoral college was set up because the sculptors of the American government thought people were too stupid for DIRECT democracy... which, it appears, they are. SO, to insure that they didn't get someone like.. well, let's say George W. Bush elected ever, they set up this system: Every state gets an electoral vote for each representative they have in the House of Representatives. This is based on the state's population - the minimum is 3 electoral votes.. you get three, no matter how few people you have in your state. California, of course, has the most. The people vote for a candidate, and whoever gets the majority vote gets every electoral vote that state has. An electoral vote, then, OFFICIALLY, is a person who represents you -- they pledge to vote for a certain candidate, and if that candidate wins the state, all that state's electoral representatives get to cast their vote for the winning candidate. These electoral representatives are supposed to be sane, respected people, ensuring that it's impossible for.. well, again, someone like Bush to get elected. Our poor, poor forefathers. Is that any help?

[Bhaisahab]

12. You know I wasn't always this dumb...

... but i don't get it. If the EC votes for the dude who wins the popular vote, why can't the reps and senators just vote as part of the electorate?
Additionally, is the Electoral College ever in a position to overturn the popular mandate? If not, why all the fuss about EC votes?
Apologize once again for being so thick.

[liberalpragmatist]

14. Well...

...the electoral vote winner doesn't have to be the popular vote winner. Al Gore won more votes than Bush, but Bush became President. Gore won 48.5% of the vote to Bush's 48% - a difference of nearly 600,000 votes. But since Bush was awarded Florida, he had an electoral college majority of 271 to Gore's 267. So yes, the EC doesn't have to reflect the popular vote. It also distorts other results - Michael Dukakis lost to George Bush Sr. by 7 or 8 points - substantial, but in the EC it was a landslide, with Dukakis getting less than a 1/4 of the EC votes.

Additionally, the members of the electoral college - local officials, partisans who are named in advance and set on a list - are under no constitutional bounds to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. In the past, elector's have voted differently, although it's never affected the result.

I'm not sure I understand your question about Reps. and Senators being able to vote as part of the electorate. They're allowed to vote as individual citizens. But they're not electors. And it isn't that Congress elects the President.* The states elect the president through the electoral college, which is an indirect way for the American people to express their preference.

*Actually, there is a scenario in which Congress elects the President. If nobody gains an electoral college majority (something that has only happened twice), then the House elects the President, by state delegation. Each state has 1 vote, which is determined by the vote within that delegation - so if a state with 8 representatives has 3 voting Bush and 5 voting Kerry, Kerry would get that state's single vote. If the two tie in a state delegation, the delegation has no vote. Whoever wins a majority of the states is the new President.

In this scenario, the Senate elects the Vice President, by simple vote.

[Doohickie]

15. The reps and senators do not make up the electoral college...

...the only relationship between reps and senators is that the number of reps and senators from each state determine the number of delegates that state gets in the electoral college.

It has happened a few times that the person who one the popular vote does not also win the electoral vote. Bush tends to have greater popularity in less populated states. These states have more delegates per population than the bigger states.* Thus, while Gore won the overall popular vote, Bush won the electoral college vote.

*The reason less-populated states have more electoral college voting power is that the House of Representatives is fixed at 435 members, but the number of members per state is based directly on population. So, if there were only 435 delegates, it would more closely match the popular vote. But add in two from each state (one for each senator) and the delegations from the smaller state grow disproportionately more.

Take as an example: If the population of the U.S. is 217,500,000 people, there would be exactly one Representative for every half million people. So a small state having only 500,000 people would have one Representative and two Senators, meaning they had one electoral college delegate for every 166,666 people. Each "popular" vote counts as 1/166,666 of an "electoral" vote. A state with 5,000,000 people would have 10 + 2 = 12 delegates, or one for every 416,666 people. Each "popular" vote equals only 1/416,666 of an "electoral" vote. So the votes from each person in the smaller state mean more (in a proportional sense) in the electoral college than those from the larger states.

[dave123williams]

8. It's kind of complicated, but not a bad system on the whole...

The electoral college is not a new thing (it's been in the US Constitution since 1783). Here's a little reading to get you started:

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/elections/elect_c...

It's kind of a 'winner-takes-all' system that varies from state to state. It insures that larger states don't have an undue advantage, and that smaller states have at least as many votes in the college as they have direct representatives. The number of districts that are elegegible to send members to the college are determined by a census, every 10 years or so. These are *always* very hotly contested.

Honestly, it's kind of a cluster-fuck, but it *does* work, most of the time.

[dave123williams]

9. Sorry, here's the link:

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/elections/elect_college/faq_electoral_college.html

[strategery blunder]

10. Ugh. The electoral college is evil, but let me explain...

When we "vote for the president," we really are voting for people to elect our president for us (electors). In most states, (exceptions being ME and maybe CO), the candidate with the most popular votes in a state wins that state's ENTIRE electoral delegation. The exceptions award electors based upon proportional representation.

However, the EC creates a distortion because a state's electoral votes equal the total number of Congresscritters it has (representatives plus senators). So each state is guaranteed at least 3 votes (1 rep+2 senators), while DC also gets three votes despite not having a Congressional delegation per the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution.

Mathematically, a state with a population of 600,000 would get one electoral vote per 200,000 population, while California (population 35,484,453) gets 55 votes, 1 per 645,171 population. Weird, huh?:shrug:

[TheFarseer]

11. Basically.....

Every state is assigned a number of electoral votes based on how many Congressmen(Senators + Representatives) they have. 2 senators per state and representatives assigned based on population. When people vote they are actually voting for the electors for their state. These electors are predisposed to vote for either Kerry or Bush. The electors don't HAVE to vote for who they are supposed to. They have never voted for the other guy in the past although, if I'm not mistaken, years and years ago electors from some states occasionally didn't vote at all. But that simply won't happen in this day and age so ignore that. So basically a candidate is trying to win states so that they can capture their electoral votes. It takes 270 to win. As you can see, a candidate could win by a large margin in some states but lose by a small margin in a majority of states, thus winning the popular vote but losing in the electoral college. Kind of stupid overall, but it sure makes for an interesting election night. Hope that helps

[AWhitneyBrown]

16. Here's another explanation.

In the original Constitution of the United States, the President was elected without any popular vote at all. He was elected by the state legislatures of each state.
Because some states have fewer people than others, each state did not get the same amount of votes. They get votes representative of their population, with the exception that each state, no matter how few people it has gets at least 3 votes. This was designed to ensure that the slave states, who had much fewer voters because up to half of their populations were slaves, would still have enough of a voice to maintain the slave system.
The system of giving each state at least 3 votes was also used in proportioning senators -each state gets two senators, no matter how small the population, and one Representative. Again, the system was designed to protect the rights of slave owners, and to ensure that neither the Senate, nor the President, would the power to abolish slavery.
About a hundred years ago, (or so, haven't looked it up), the people made it known they wanted to elect the President directly, but this was not done.
Instead, in order again to protect the interests of states with less population (not the slave states anymore, but the big mining, timber, railroad, and grazing interests) the system was changed so that the people directly elect a slate of electors, pre-chosen from each state.
When you vote for President, you are actually voting for a slate of electors from your state who have pledged to vote for either Bush or Kerry, or Nader, or whoever.
These electors can, theoretically, change their minds, get bought or blackmailed, or just change their votes, becoming what is known as a 'faithless elector'. It can and does happen, and in fact it happened last in 2000, when one of Gore's electors from Washington, D.C., cast no ballot to protest D.C.'s lack of Congressional Representation.
D.C. has no Senators or Congressman, because everyone knows they would be Democrats and so no deal can be made. Hawaii and Alaska became states at the same time in 1958 because it was known their Senators and Congressmen would be split evenly between D and R, thus not changing anything.
It is possible, if a candidate wins some states by a huge margin, and your opponent wins his by just a few votes, that you can win the overall national popular vote and lose the presidency. This is what happened to Gore. It represents the fact that the electoral college does not accurately represent the population. Notice Bush won all the sparsely populated western states.
However, the difference is quite small. Any candidate who wins the popular vote by more than 1.5 per cent is guaranteed to win election, so this can only happen when it is very close.
By the way 2000 was not the closest election of my lifetime. That was 1960, JFK vs. Nixon. JFK won by only 100,000 votes. But the electoral college wasn't close. Gore won by 500,000 or more, mostly because of large margins in Illinois, California, and New York.

[AWhitneyBrown]

17. A couple of additions.

This slate of pledged electors is called 'the electoral college' and is made up generally of the most dedicated party hack each party can find, usually mayors or other officials like that.
In 48 of the states, whichever slate (Bush or Kerry) wins the majority of popular votes, wins the whole number of that states electoral votes. You win New Mexico by 1 vote, you get all 5 of New Mexico's electoral votes.
But in two states, Nebraska and Maine, which have a tradition (at least at one time) of open and progressive government, they use a system of proportional voting. That is, if you win Nebraska by 51%, you get 3 electors, and the other 2 go to the guy who won 49%. (Actually, I think they elect by Congressional District, and Maine goes by the overall number), either way, they split their votes proportionally.
Currently, the Democrats have put a measure on Colorado's ballot that will make Colorado a proportional state. The law would take place immediately, if it passes, with the hope of giving Kerry a couple of Colorado's electors. This could tip the balance this year.
Obviously, this would also make Colorado no longer a battleground in the future, so it is probably not in the interest of the state to do it.
This system of the electoral college is not likely ever to change. The reason is that two thirds of the states would have to vote to change it, and more than one third of the states are small states that benefit from it.
A coalition of the sparsely populated Western states and geographically small New England states would probably join to defeat the Constitutional amendment before it ever got out of the Senate.
So, we're stuck with the system.

[AWhitneyBrown]

18. One more interesting thing.

Because the state legislatures were given the power of electing the President, they still have it. In other words, it was the state legislatures of each state that voted to give the people the right to chose the electors they send to vote for the President.
State legislatures still make the rules for Presidential elections, not the federal government.
One interesting thing to think about is what would have happened in Florida if the Supreme Court would not have stepped in? Most likely the Florida Supreme Court's order for a statewide recount would have proceeded and found Gore the winner. However, the Republicans controlled the state legislature, and they had already planned to overturn that result and send Republican electors to Washington anyway. Then there would have really been a stink.
So the Bushes had a back up plan, but didn't need it. Yes, they truly are that evil.

[goodhue]

19. It is winner take all on a state by state basis.

Each state has electoral votes assigned by population.