Originally Posted By LadyKluck As a first time voter (for a presidential election anyways) and it's been about 12 years since I graduated high school, I had no clue about the existance of the electoral vote. I had NO CLUE that these votes chose the president not my (and everyone else's). My question is what is an electoral vote and who is it that makes that vote? Also if these votes are how the president is chosen why do the rest of us vote at all? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck or start another war, I genuinely don't understand and would like an explination/education because even though the man I voted for won, it was decided before my vote was even counted so I partially feel like my vote really doesn't count. Thanks for your help.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It's a somewhat complex thing, but here's a good overview site: <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html" target="_blank">http://www.archives.gov/federa...out.html</a> >>it was decided before my vote was even counted<< Actually, it wasn't. The electors don't cast their votes until mid December.
Originally Posted By LadyKluck If they don't vote in december then what's the 270 electoral votes that were required to choose the winner on tuesday? See I'm so confucious...I mean confused...
Originally Posted By avromark See our system is easier, you vote for your local representative in the house (We call them MP's for Member of Parliament), if in your riding (electoral district)they have the most votes (first past the post, simply the most votes of any of the candidates) they represent you in the house. So if I voted for Joe Smith, People's Party, then I elect him to office. The leader of the party with the most votes becomes the PM. So if Peoples party wins the most votes then Jane Doe who is the leader becomes our National leader. (Technically second in command symbolically). Getting back on topic - your system confuses me. Does that mean even though Obama won over 270 electoral votes, he won't be president if they vote otherwise, like change their mind?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>If they don't vote in december then what's the 270 electoral votes that were required to choose the winner on tuesday?<< The Electoral College delegates from each state are supposed to vote the same way the state's voters did (although in most cases they don't really HAVE to). Since more populous states get more delegates, those states are considered more "important." Also, nobody pays much attention to states like Mississippi and California, which **always** vote for the same party. It was a compromise by the Founding Fathers, some of whom didn't like the idea of the rabble directly selecting the President. The freaky thing about the Electoral College is that situations could (and do) arise where the guy who gets the most votes in the Electoral College is *not* the guy who got the most votes from the American people. Only the President is selected in this way. You voted directly in all the other races. And even though it doesn't technically "count," your vote for President does help your candidate's credibility (or hurt the other guy's) by increasing his/her popular vote total.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Does that mean even though Obama won over 270 electoral votes, he won't be president if they vote otherwise, like change their mind?<< In theory. In practice, you risk eternal shunning if you don't vote for who you're supposed to. In some states, state law forces them to vote for the winner. Occasionally there will be one or two kooks who go off on their own, but I don't think it's ever had even a teensy effect on the outcome.
Originally Posted By LadyKluck So for example Joe Schmoe and John Doe are running for president. The popular vote picks Joe as the winner but the electoral college picks John. I'm assuming from the sounds of it the electoral college is who decides so in this case John Doe becomes president not Joe Schmoe?
Originally Posted By avromark I think mawnck said basically they vote for who their state voted for with just one or 2 that buck the trend. So with the lead that Obama has a few non conformists won't make a difference.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The popular vote picks Joe as the winner but the electoral college picks John. I'm assuming from the sounds of it the electoral college is who decides so in this case John Doe becomes president not Joe Schmoe?<< Correct, and it has happened. Just ask Al Gore. But it's not rogue EC voters that cause it. It's that there were landslides for the popular vote winner in a few of the really populous states, and close races for the other guy in most of the others. Which is the other thing about the Electoral College. It keeps California and New York from doing all the President-picking. It *is* controversial in the US too, and a few more elections like Bush vs. Gore in 2000 (with its disastrous result for the country) might eventually result in a Constitutional amendment to ditch it.
Originally Posted By LadyKluck Thanks for explaining it guys. I don't like it but its not the first time I've had that feeling about something the government has done!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't like it either, and since the states with the larger populations have more electoral votes, it seems rather pointless to me. I'd love to see the electoral college system go away and make it all about the popular vote. There was some noise about an effort to get rid of it after the 2000 mess, but not much since. I remember first learning about it in junior high, and it struck me as a dopey idea even way back then. Today, with the proliferation of media everyplace, it seems particularly ridiculous.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Traditionally, small states have objected to doing away with the electoral college, since every state gets 2 votes plus the number of congressional districts, meaning small states have disproportionately more say. Wyoming, for instance, gets 3 votes to CA's 55, which seems like a lot, but the population difference when you take away the 2 "gimmes" each state gets, means CA ought to have 53 to 1. Thus, a voter in Wyoming, (or Vermont, or Alaska) essentially gets disproportionate weight to his vote compared to a voter in CA or TX or even a mid-sized state like MO. Small states have often defended this, saying if we got rid of the electoral college, no candidate would pay attention to them. That might have had merit once, but no longer. With the kind of excellent polling we have now, nobody in ANY state, large or small, that isn't considered a "battleground" state gets any attention anyway. It's all focused on about a dozen swing states, and that's it.
Originally Posted By FaMulan Another hitch is all but two states mandate that all that state's electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote. So, in CA, much to the chagrin of our resident Republicans, all 55 electoral votes went to the Democrat, because most of CA tends toward the Democratic party.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP Keep in mind too, that canidites have limited time and limited money. (with possible exceptions on the money thing for our current president elect!) If there were no, winner take all, electoral system where the money gets concentrated on those state on the edge of going for one canidate or the other, the money and attention would most likely go to the largest cities, where a canidites ad buys could reach the most number of people and the rallies could also be seen by the most number of people. Because resouces are limited there is no way I can think of to actually make canidates to campaign to all the states and all the people equally.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP BTW there have been 3 elections where the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college: 1876, 1888, and 2000. The loser of the 1888 election, Grover Cleavland, chose to run again in 1892 and this time won both the electoral college and the popular vote. Also, to our knowlege, there has been only one time when an elector didn't vote for who they were "supposed" to. In 1820 Monroe ran for and won reelection, as a matter of fact he won every single state, for a unanimous electoral college victory. However, one elector wanted George Washington to be the only person ever to win a unanimous victory, so he voted for John Quincy Adams, an old old man who had already been president and wasn't even running. Obviously this did not affect the final outcome of anything.
