The Electoral College

[SlightlyCatholic]

I was looking up the functions and composition of the Electoral College today, and I found this at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#popular:

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

I also found this at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html :

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

It seems to me that this list is telling me that half the country's popular vote has the possibility of making zero impact on the result of a presidential election. It looks like an elector could simply choose not to follow the will of the people and give his or her vote to whomever he or she wants. That doesn't seem very democratic to me...

In the FAQ on the website, it states:

It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State.

Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

What does "on the basis of" mean? Why vote in a president that loses the popular vote? Does this mean that we really didn't want Bush but the electors decided he would be better for the country?

The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.

How do you vote for someone who isn't on a ballot?

I don't mean to gripe about our political system, and I put this on here so I can fill in the holes. I'm just very confused as to why the popular vote isn't directly used in determining the leader of the country. Why even bother choosing electors? Why not just count all the popular votes and use that? If somebody can clear this up, I'd appreciate it.

[PaulR]

Thanks for posting this Tim. I am confused and blown by what I have read... Are you saying that in the above listed states that the Electoral College does NOT have to go by the vote of the people when casting their ballot? :mad:

[SlightlyCatholic]

That's what that website seemed to imply, and that's a government website. I realize we're a respresentative democracy, but I don't understand why there's room in the election process for the will of the people to be ignored.

[PaulR]

Then what is the point of us even completing a freak'n ballot?

[SlightlyCatholic]

That's what I'm trying to figure out. According to that list, my state (Rhode Island) has four electoral votes that determine the new POTUS. The electors in my state have no obligation to vote according to the popular decision, and that's something I don't understand. We're a small state so it's not really an issue, but that list represents half the country's electors that (apparently) can vote however they want no matter what the people want. Even if the electors usually DO go with the people, the problem I have is the fact that they're not obliged to do so. My other problem is the lack of information on these electors. Why don't we know more about who these electors are so we can make an informed decision about them? Now that I reread this:

The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.

It seems to me that we don't get ANY say regarding who these electors are, and states don't even have to tell us. If there's a chance my vote won't count, I at least want to choose the person whose vote definately WILL count.

[HairyEyeball]

Uh, Tim...it's not supposed to be 'democratic': This was intended to be a 'representative republic' with the members of the House being elected by the people and those of the Senate appointed by the legislatures of the individual States - under the supposition that those representatives were to constitute the Electoral College. Of course, thanks(?) to Amendment XVII, the greatest step taken toward 'democracy' (i.e. mob rule), we have two 'people's houses', one serving for two years, one for six.

The rationale for the original makeup of both the Senate and the Electoral College was similar: That the most populous States not have undue influence in either the Senate or the choice of President, that the individual States composing the Union exercise their powers as sovereign and equal entities in both the governance of the United States and in deciding the individual to preside over such central government.

As to 'why the popular vote' may have less influence on the Presidency than mere numbers would suggest, consider the dumbing down and socialist indoctrination overwhelmingly prevalent in in the 'education' establishment over the past half-century or more, the near deification of the President who instigated a sea of socialist policies and laid the groundwork for generations more, even the rise of the current jackass party qandidate, and ask yourself if you truly want the leadership of this nation dependent on their vote.

[SlightlyCatholic]

As to 'why the popular vote' may have less influence on the Presidency than mere numbers would suggest, consider the dumbing down and socialist indoctrination overwhelmingly prevalent in in the 'education' establishment over the past half-century or more, the near deification of the President who instigated a sea of socialist policies and laid the groundwork for generations more, even the rise of the current jackass party qandidate, and ask yourself if you truly want the leadership of this nation dependent on their vote.

So the public is too dumb to pick a good leader? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. The fact that a select few make the final say regarding our national leader and can ignore the will of the people is something I find elitist. We could put everybody in my state with a college degree at the voting booth in November and they could still be overruled by a couple electors. I don't think a lack of education is the problem. I also fail to see the causal link between the poor quality of our educational system and a restriction of the influence of the popular vote. Many of these electors came from the same "educational establishment" and somehow they have more say than millions of Americans in choosing the President? It doesn't add up to me.

[HairyEyeball]

Son, it's fairly obvious you have either not read the Constitution, or not understood it. You also fail to comprehend my point, instead choosing to interpret it through a myopic lens.

I understand your theological studies may preclude the time necessary to study the Constitution and the history surrounding its drafting, a deprivation that may well have influenced your perspective. That is the purpose of 'free and open discussion', and of the links 03Shooter has posted to such relevant documentation. This nation was never intended to be a 'democracy'; 'fair' is a place you go to eat cotton candy, gawk at animals and go on rides; and the fact that one may possess a college degree means only that one spent a specified number of years at an institute of 'higher education': Such degrees are awarded in or for areas such as 'black studies', 'womens studies' and '(semi-professional) athletics'; many of those - especially in the latter category - cannot even read their 'diplomas'...and the presence or absence of such degree has less bearing on 'intelligence' or 'common sense' than the color of one's (civilian) socks has on the hair color of one's spouse.

We are all ignorant in some areas. We do, however, have the option of educating ourselves or continuing to argue from ignorance and prejudice.

[SlightlyCatholic]

If you could show me where I don't understand the Constitution and how that relates to my view of the Electoral College, I would appreciate it. I realize such documents are on this forum, but with my blurred vision, I'm not sure looking at them would do much good anyway. I'm a philosophy major in my second year of undergraduate work, and I realize I have a lot to learn. However, it seems to me that in many states the popular vote is a scharade. If that's not the case, again, please correct my bifocals.

the fact that one may possess a college degree means only that one spent a specified number of years at an institute of 'higher education'

I have to disagree with you there. I respect the opinion of someone who holds a Doctorate as an authority, and I would take their opinion over someone who doesn't have a Ph.D. Does that mean I wouldn't verify their opinion before taking it as truth? Of course not, but an academic degree is more than a piece of paper. I'm not spending four years of my time so I can put a document on my wall, and I'm fairly certain I'll be more intelligent from having graduated from college.

Just so everybody knows: I have a great respect for everyone on this forum. I am simply debating what I feel is a correct view and I am more than willing to learn. However, I like to debate and I can get pretty heated. Please don't take this as disrespectful behavior, because that's not what's intended. I would also request that I be treated as an adult here. I realize that I'm a college student and that I'll be turning 20 in January, and that may lend itself to some here thinking I may be have work ahead of me in the areas of life experience and attitude. While that may be true, where I'm from the word "son" is used in one of two ways: in a familial context from a male parent to a male child or as a label for someone regarded as intellectually childlike. I assure all of you that I am not the latter. Thanks, God bless, and I look forward to debating with everyone.

[HairyEyeball]

First, some clarification: 'Son' can be used interchangeably with 'young man' or a number of other pronouns without the pejorative tone of 'sonny', 'kid' or similar. In this case, it's 'old and experienced (and conceivably wise, to some extent) speaking to younger, less experienced'. A college degree at any level does not confer wisdom or knowledge, and doing the work to actually earn one does not make one any more 'intelligent', merely more knowledgeable (and perhaps capable of more abstract logic). The presence or absence of such 'formal recognition', however, is no indication of competence in a given area: I cannot (nor would not) speak for anyone else, but I have more than 'held my own' in discussions on many aspects of the Constitution and the theory of law with degreed scholars long before receiving an undergraduate degree, and have enlightened individuals with degrees in 'law' on aspects of the legislative process and the history and meaning of 'the law' as well as specific laws - because I was interested enough to research the subjects on my own, consult legal writings from Blackstone on, and peruse the writings of the Founding Fathers. I have no doubt others have paralleled such inquiry in areas of their interests.

As to the popular vote being a 'charade' (note spelling), it might benefit you to research precisely the clause of the Constitution authorizing any individual capable of being led to a polling place and making his mark on the register having some nebulous 'right' to cast a ballot...or, you can accept my assurance that no such provision exists. In that sense, the entire campaign process is little more than a raree, an entertainment performed for the public. The conceit that any one individual's vote, however uninformed and dependent on what motivation it may be, should have equal weight with that of an informed individual who actually contributes to the well-being of the nation is a legalized absurdity. If you understood my prior references to the Electoral College and the members of the Senate, you would also understand why both were established as they were, and the fear and repugnance the Founders had of mob rule (aka 'democracy') and the tyranny of the majority. Casting a ballot for federal office was reserved, in the early days of the nation, for those males - of any 'class' - who owned property. The underlying rationale was that they were 'responsible', that they contributed, through efforts on their own behalf, to the fiscal and moral advancement of the community - by employing others, by paying taxes to finance the public good, and by setting a positive example: One need only read the early history of Virginia's starving 'gentlemen' prior to the mandated responsibility of one's own land to grasp the connection.

Had you understood the reference therein to 'academic degrees', you would have comprehended that the conferral of such was not a valid indication of 'intelligence' by any means, nor of 'knowledge': A certain number of graduates do, indeed, 'earn' them through the traditional method of acquiring and demonstrating knowledge , some have them awarded for 'other reasons'. Additionally, 'intelligence' is no standard: 'Brilliant' individuals have succeeded without high school diplomae, others of lesser 'intelligence' have, through hard work and desire, achieved advanced degrees and 'success' as measured by society.

You are not being mocked for your ignorance of a subject you choose to express opinions on; if that be your inference. As you are aware, there are people here who are knowledgeable in areas others of us may not be, and who are willing to share that knowledge. If you have contrary opinions, you are certainly free to express them, but you might also consider posting the basis for those conclusions, as well as the method followed leading from those 'facts' to those conclusions.

[PhilK]

The real issue with the electoral college is that it is an "all or nothing" system. And thus the reason we can have in theory a President put into office that did not win the popular election but won the electoral college.

Example: Candidate A wins Texas 51% to 49% of the popular vote thus getting 34 electoral votes. But Candidate B could win Georgia 99% to 1% and only get 15 electoral votes.

Repeat this process across the US and you could end up with someone who won the majority of the popular vote...just not in the right states.

This is why you have candidates who campaign harder in certain states then others. If Texas were a battle ground state then both candadites there as opposed to someplace like North Dakota.

When I was working on my Poly Sci degree, we would discuss the merits of a "proportianal representation" system. In this system with the example I gave earlier the Electoral Votes would be split 51% to 49% between the candidates and would eliminate the possibility of someone getting the popular vote but losing the electora vote. (In theory)

Something else to ponder.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Hairy,

Thanks for your response. It was both informative and polite, and I certainly understand your asking me to provide a logical sequence from an opinion to a justifiable claim. As I mentioned, I'm simply here for discussion and to learn a thing or two about our political system. As someone who anticipates serving the Catholic faith as a priest, I won't have a whole lot of contact with politics on a large scale. However, the study of philosophy has made me question many of the laws and institutions around me, and I'm currently looking to search out those answers as my study continues. Again, thank you for your understanding and ability to discuss the topic.

Back on topic:

Phil, you raise a good point. Those states that are not battlegrounds can also feel alienated from the decision process when choosing a President. In places like RI, we rarely see a campaign commercial because it was decided long ago that we a) had only four votes and b) were a "blue" state (along with most of the Northeast).

[SGM]

Tim,
I have some sense of that feeling - Idaho only has 4 electoral votes, not necessarly a battle ground. But if by chance the candidates were to win the correct states, it might be possible for a small state like Idaho to make a difference. I could happen.

I also vote because it I can. I also feel if I don't vote I don't have the right to complain about the results of the election. At least this way I feel I got the right to complain.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Tim,
I have some sense of that feeling - Idaho only has 4 electoral votes, not necessarly a battle ground. But if by chance the candidates were to win the correct states, it might be possible for a small state like Idaho to make a difference. I could happen.

I also vote because it I can. I also feel if I don't vote I don't have the right to complain about the results of the election. At least this way I feel I got the right to complain.

I think that's what it's about for most Americans. "Well, whether my vote counts or not, I have bragging right if my candidate wins and I can complain if he doesn't." It's a poor civic attitude to take, but if you don't know the political scene for the election, sometimes that "Superbow mentality" is the fallback.

[HairyEyeball]

I don't. Too many cast their ballots at the urging of empty-headed 'celebrities' just - as so many career politicians - to show they're 'doing something' with absolutely no knowledge of the candidates or issues, or for reasons totally unrelated to a candidate's competence, qualifications or ability, or because they've been incited to 'hate' him, or over one specific issues that a candidate may or may not have any influence over.

Many also see it as an unpleasant duty (much like sitting for jury duty and never being called, or knowing that you'll be dismissed) that needs to be gotten over with as quickly and painlessly as possible (the 'not much difference between 'em factor is strong here).

And the question of who may vote is still arbitrary: While the Constitution specifies that Representatives are to be elected by 'the people', nowhere does it specify which people, possessed of what qualifications, are to participate in such voting.

[SAC_Cop]

To risk being thought ignorant, I have to agree with "Seminarian_Tim". Being a University graduate, twenty year veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, an amateur historian and a current civil servant in the law enforcement field, I have to say I have read the Constitution and understand the reasoning behind the establishment of the electoral college. I still wish we had the popular vote instead, it would be comforting to know my vote would not be negated by a faceless body of people.

[Billyd]

The problem with doing away with the Electoral College is that then the population centers of LA and NYC would then be the only ones that would be selecting the president.

What the Electoral College does is force candidates, for better or worse, to campaign through out fly-over country. If they only had to campaign on the left and right coasts, then those of us in the middle wouldn't even get the time of day from them, in a manner of speaking.

I would like to see the winner take all statutes repealed and award the electoral votes based on congressional districts with the two leftover awarded to the winner of the most EVs.

[03_SHOOTER]

To risk being thought ignorant, I have to agree with "Seminarian_Tim". Being a University graduate, twenty year veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, an amateur historian and a current civil servant in the law enforcement field, I have to say I have read the Constitution and understand the reasoning behind the establishment of the electoral college. I still wish we had the popular vote instead, it would be comforting to know my vote would not be negated by a faceless body of people.
:blueberet:
In order to do so would require a Constitutional Amendment, and while it is conceivably possible, it's highly doubtful. Also, as Billy pointed out, we would then have the major cities (which I believe everyone readily concedes are decidedly liberal) deciding the elections while everyone else (which is decidedly more conservative) would be stuck with the tab. If your interest is in "having your vote count", then ensure that in your State, the Electors are bound by the popular election results, whether you support a "winner take all" or a "proportional elector" system.

As an aside, we're all ignorant in some way or another, and there's nothing wrong with positing a position from the standpoint of discussion, that's how we all learn, and that's something we can all do.;)

[03_SHOOTER]

I don't. Too many cast their ballots at the urging of empty-headed 'celebrities' just - as so many career politicians - to show they're 'doing something' with absolutely no knowledge of the candidates or issues, or for reasons totally unrelated to a candidate's competence, qualifications or ability, or because they've been incited to 'hate' him, or over one specific issues that a candidate may or may not have any influence over.

Many also see it as an unpleasant duty (much like sitting for jury duty and never being called, or knowing that you'll be dismissed) that needs to be gotten over with as quickly and painlessly as possible (the 'not much difference between 'em factor is strong here).

And the question of who may vote is still arbitrary: While the Constitution specifies that Representatives are to be elected by 'the people', nowhere does it specify which people, possessed of what qualifications, are to participate in such voting.

:blueberet:
I have posited several times in the past, and at the risk of drawing the ire of many, I will do so again, that before being allowed to vote, certain requirements should be met. While it is doubtful, for a multiplicity of reasons, among them 2 Constitutional Amendment, that the original requirements will ever be re-enacted, there is no impediment to the States requiring a test that all of it's citizens would be required to pass before being allowed to vote, and proper identification should also be required to be presented at the polling place prior to either being handed a ballot, or proceeding to the whiz-bang box. Frankly if you can't pass a simple "Civics 101" style test, you have no business being allowed to vote in the first place, and if you're too lazy to take the time to study for the test, I don't want you being allowed anywhere near a ballot.

[PDudkowski]

Allow me to disagree with the premiss that only east and left coast citizens would be courted. Texas holds 3 of the top ten cities in population. The Chicago area with it's 7 million citizens would be important. More so than the big cities comes into play every citizen of voting age. Did the last two presidential elections not leave an impact crater on your brain. When every city, town and village and farm community completed the tally, those elections were statistical dead heats.

Never been a fan of the Electoral College for the reasons descibed at the onset of this thread. No secret I lean democrat but it matters not in Texas. My vote has not counted here for a long time. On state and local elections it is very important but for POTUS, not. The end result are voters who feel disenfranchised. Sadly, some feel that if the big ticket vote doesn't matter, the need to show up has been greatly diminished and so the other 22 candidates and 12 propositions do not get the benefit of the vote and there in lies the shame. I can not vote for either candidate for the presidency but I have an obligation to vote my conviction for one senator, my House district and many other state and county officials. Won't let a sad field running for CinC keep me away from the polls. If only the rest felt that way.

[wukong]

The real issue with the electoral college is that it is an "all or nothing" system. And thus the reason we can have in theory a President put into office that did not win the popular election but won the electoral college.

Something else to ponder.

Ponder this, the Electoral College purpose is to have finality in the Presidential election process. The Florida disaster is just a fore taste of what could happen in a close election nationwide if the popular vote was the determining factor in Presidential elections. Instead of Gore's wish to have recounts only in the precincts where he might garner more votes, the entire nation would require recounting. Who in their right mind would like to go thru a challenge in Chicago or Philadelphia where they police winos off the street and get them to a polling place.

[Woody]

Well if its gets too complicated you can allways come back to your true rulers :devil:.  We will forgive you :)

[wukong]

Well if its gets too complicated you can allways come back to your true rulers :devil:.* We will forgive you :)

That's why my Scotch Irish forbearers left, the rulers were too simple.