Right? Actually, they don't. Instead, they vote for people called electors who come together in Washington in December and cast their votes for these offices. There are 538 electors, and theirs are the only votes that count. Together, they are known as the Electoral College.
If you add the number of representatives each state has, which is determined by population, to the number of Senators, two each, you get the number of electors. For example, California, which has the most people of any state, has 52 Representatives and 2 Senators, so they get 54 electors. Wyoming, which has the fewest people, has only 1 representative and 2 senators, so they get 3 electors. If you add the 3 from the District of Columbia, you get 538 total. Anyone who wins at least half of these votes plus one, or 270 votes, is elected President.
Clear and present dangers.
In 1823 Thomas Jefferson denounced the Electoral College as "the most dangerous blot on our Constitution." When America was a newborn country under the US Constitution one of various problems facing the founding fathers was that of how to elect a president. America was a nation that was composed of states suspicious of any central government, spread across thousands of miles with little connection between them, many believed that any political party was evil, and that people should not have to campaign for office; rather the office should seek them (FEC). Their answer to this proposed dilemma was the creation of a College of Electors. In this college each state would have the number of representatives in the Senate along with the amount of representatives the state has in the House of Representatives. Over the years this system of choosing a president has faced criticism after many controversial elections. Most recently the 2000 presidential election has caused problems with the Electoral College to flare up again.
Is the Electoral College hurting democracy?
Over the centuries the Electoral College seems to have gone with the opinions of the public, but there have been a few anomalies. In 1800 the electors gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr the same number of votes, the House of Representatives then settled the dispute as outlined in the Constitution. The relativity of this case is that it was the first to show a flaw of the Electoral College and prompted the creation of the 12th amendment. In the election of 1824 there were four strong contenders for the presidency. None of the candidates received the required majority of electoral votes in order to become president. Thus, once again, the decision was left to the House of Representatives who elected John Quincy Adams even though Andrew Jackson had the majority of the popular vote, this being the first time that a candidate who received the popular majority failed to be elected president.
Tippecanoe and Tyler, too
In 1836 the Whig party attempted to exploit the workings of the Electoral College by sending several different candidates around the country according to regional appeal. The purpose of this strategy was to get the majority of the electoral votes for the party rather than a single candidate and then use the votes to choose the candidate they wanted for president. Although this strategy did not work, it does bring up concerns about how this flaw of the Electoral College can affect the fairness of the presidential election. In 1872 presidential candidate Horace Greeley ran against Ulysses S. Grant but died before the Electoral College convened. Greeley's 86 votes where left to be divided among the four minor candidates. Although it did not affect the election results, the Electoral College "seriously skewed history, because Grant is credited with crushing Greeley 286-0"(CTD 2000). In 1888 Benjamin Harrison lost in the popular vote but was still elected over the popular candidate Grover Cleveland. However, Harrison had managed a slim majority in a multiple large states, letting him win by electoral votes.
In the previous century there have been a few elections that, had a small group of voters changed their votes, a minority president would have been elected. For example, in the 1976 election if just 5,548 voters in Ohio and 3,686 voters in Hawaii had voted for Gerald Ford instead of Jimmy Carter, Ford would have been elected even though he was behind Carter in the popular vote by 1.6 million ballots.
"I'm sorry I ever invented the Electoral College." - Al Gore
Along with all of the previously stated problems, in the last century there have been 3 minority presidents elected consisting of: Woodrow Wilson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and most recently George W. Bush. The most recent problem with the Electoral College was the 2000 presidential election. Bush won the electoral votes of Florida by an amount of 537 votes out of 6 million, thus giving him the needed votes of 271 to become president. Despite the fact that Al Gore had the majority of the popular vote George W. Bush was still elected president.
In addition to the past tribulations with the Electoral College, there are other reasons that many see as justifiable for abolishing the Electoral College. One of the most prominent arguments to remove the Electoral College is that it creates the possibility to elect a minority president. Proponents of the Electoral College argue that since a candidate requires at least 270 votes to win there is no way a candidate can win without a significant voter base. Yet this has already happened several times in the past and occurs in one of three ways: one candidate may lead in the popular vote but the other candidate has secured enough states to obtain a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, a second way is that if a third party candidate draws enough votes away from either of the two major parties so that neither receive 50% of the popular vote which has occurred 16 times before including 8 times this century, the electoral votes are split among three or more candidates and no one can achieve the majority needed , which has happened twice and attempted once; there are two ways to determine who will be elected in a situation like this. A candidate can throw his electoral votes to support one of their opponents or the House of Representatives must decide, yet both of these will result in a minority president (FEC). By creating a direct election of the candidates or having a national run off between the two candidates that received the most votes could solve each of these problems. The most significant caveat to this solution is that it's very likely that since just nine states hold half the US population, a politician could ignore 41 states and actually win the election, promising massive entitlements for the few.
The Wild Cards
A further problem with the Electoral College is that of "Faithless Electors." These are the electors that promise to cast their vote for the candidate of the opposite party. There is no constitutional protection against these faithless electors and only in about half the states are electors bound by rules or laws to vote for the candidate they are supposed to vote for (Sidems 2001). For example, in 1948, 1960, and 1976 individual electors cast their votes for third party candidates. If there were to be defecting electors in a close race it would worsen the crisis of confidence in the electoral system.
An additional concern about the Electoral College is that small states are over represented. In many small states the votes of the people hold much more weight than that of a voter in a big state. For instance every electoral vote in New York represents about 550,000, while South Dakota has one for every 232,000 people. To put this in perspective, one can look at the 2000 election where Bush captured 73 votes in 12 small states that had the combined population of California whereas Gore only received 54 votes by winning California itself (Sidems 2001). Moreover supporters of the Electoral College state that since it operates on a state-by-state basis, a majority of the states must support the president and that no region of the country should be able to dominate the election. However this does not seem like a particularly effective way to prevent regional domination and the Constitution already takes steps to avoid this by prohibiting the President and Vice President from living in the same states. In a system in which a majority is required would, nearly by definition, better represent the entire country (CTD 2000).
Conversely the winner-take-all system that most states tend to superimpose upon the structure tends to magnify the importance of larger state voters, thus resulting in candidates to have reason to commit disproportionate amounts of time and resources to the larger states (Goldstein, 34-36). A different problem that the winner takes all system creates is that it produces a huge obstacle for third parties to overcome since it tends to promote the two party system. It is extremely difficult for a third party candidate to ever make much of a showing in the Electoral College. If a third party where to win 25% of the popular votes, it would still be very unlikely for them to get any electoral votes. Even if the party did manage to win a few states, their support in other states would not be accurately reflected. Although proponents of the Electoral College argue that by preserving the two party system that it promotes national cohesion, but by failing to accurately reflect the national popular will and discouraging third parties or independents thereby restricts the choices available to the electorate and can never truly represent the voters (FEC).
The Electoral College also disrupts the one vote one-person system that should be the way the President is elected. The Electoral College innately violates this system through the representation of part of a population as a single electoral vote.
Support for abolishing the Electoral College continues to grow. Many organizations and parties, such as the League of Women Voters whom made a proposal on Electoral College reform to the House of Representatives and parties like the Green party support its abolition as well. There are also a slew of past and present public officials that support abolishing it such as: Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Hillary Clinton, and many others.
Toward democratic elections
If the Electoral College is abolished then how should we elect the president? There are currently several proposals of what can be used in place of the Electoral College. The one most sought after by opponents of the College is that of a direct election. In this case each party would submit one candidate and the voters would directly chose who is to become president. This would be ideal because it would implement the one vote one-person policy that is required for a true democracy. Also this would help to increase voter turn out since each and every vote would in fact count. An additional plus to this system of election would be in the case of no candidate receiving the majority of the popular vote by 40% or more, in which the two candidates that received the highest amount of votes would run in a national run-off election.
Achieving a complete abolishment of the College would require an Amendment voted for by 2/3 of each house in Congress and ratification by ¾ of the states legislatures, removing the Electoral College seems highly improbable. As a result others have proposed an added possible solution for the Electoral College and that is one of not abolishing the College but passing an amendment that would significantly change it. If these changes where to be implemented the electoral votes of a state would be divided among candidates according to their share of the popular vote within the state (Sidems 2001). This raises some complexities in distributing the proper amount of votes to each candidate because the proposal suggests a system that is already used in Maine and Nebraska where two electoral votes are given to the state's popular vote winner and the others go to the winners in each U.S. House District. For instance if the state majority winner of Maine does well in District 1 but does poorly in District 2 the statewide winner would get 3 votes but the loser would still get one (Sidems 2001).
When our Founding Fathers constructed the Electoral College the status of America was significantly different than it is now. In the 18th century communication and travel between states was very limited and the general public was uneducated. Today interstate travel is commonplace and the public is generally better informed. Given that the Electoral College was designed to get around these now non-existent problems the College is no longer needed. What's more America was built on the right to self govern, but the Electoral College itself is an opponent of democracy and until it is abolished America shall never truly be democratic.
Sources:
Abolish The Electoral College: http://www.sidems.org/electoral.htm
Adams, Christopher. Electoral College. Tucson, Arizona. (Speech presented at Flowing Wells high school 2003).
Electoral College Problems www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/ec2000.html
Infoplease: http://www.infoplease.com/
As far as it can be told, though, to those who are apathetic toward government, a widespread non-vote sends a clear signal of apathy. To those who are disgusted with the government, a widespread non-vote sends a clear signal of disgust. To those who are too lazy to vote, a widespread non-vote only shows how so many others are lazy, too. And to the politicians, who desperately hope that everyone will approve of and like them, a wide-spread non-vote only means that there are those many people out there who don't approve of or like them.
But when I see people express sentiments that voting will change things more than not voting, I wonder if they've actually studied the voting process. I'm speaking, of course, of the Electoral College, a method of election that was originally begun to ensure balance of voice among all the states when casting their votes, but is also under some heavy-duty criticism these day.
Basically, it works like this:
1) Every state is allocated a certain number of electors, based on the number of senators in their state plus the number of congressmen.
2) Through conventions, appointment, or direct designation, each political party in each state submits a list of people pledged to vote for their candidate, equal to the number of electoral votes in that state. Note that at this point, the presidential and vice-presidential candidates have not been chosen yet, because
3) After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties then nominate their candidates.
4) On voting day, we vote, but we're not voting for the president, we're casting our votes for the party slate of Electors who represent our choice for president.
5) Whichever party slate wins that state becomes that state's Electors for the College. In effect, then, all the votes that mean anything coming out of a state will be for one candidate only, because the other party's Electors lost, so they will not be voting on that state's behalf for the other candidate.
6) In December, long after the popular vote is run, the state Electors meet in their state capitols and cast their votes for the candidate they'd previously pledged toward (before the candidates were even chosen)
7) The electoral votes are sealed and delivered to the President of the Senate, and on January 6, these votes are read and decide who the president will be.
So, you see, when you cast your vote, if you decide to do so, you're really electing a party so the appropriate group of Electors can step forward and cast their vote. Part of the crux is, they are not legally bound to vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents.
It's been pointed out the Electoral College members have voted in accordance with the wishes of their constituents 99% of the time in America's history, and therefore one should feel relatively safe with the speaking power of their vote. One may have confidence if one wishes, but the fact is the simple math doesn't support this. Such thinking has fallen victim to what is known as the Gambler's Fallacy. If you have repeatedly flipped a certain perfectly shaped coin a number of times and found that it came up heads 99% of the time, it seems natural to assume that the next toss has a 99% chance of also being heads. Alas, the next toss has an even 50-50 chance of being heads, just like any other toss. The casting of the votes by the Electoral College members is no different. A 99% history is comforting, but the next election only holds a 50-50 chance that they will vote in line with the voice of the public.
And those aren't very good odds, indeed.
There are several instances of curious events occurring with this process, including one in which the Electoral College vote completely overturned the popular vote. In 1888, the people elected Grover Cleveland for a second term. The Electoral College, though, elected Benjamin Harrison, and that was the end of that.
This could happen if the winning candidate polled exactly one more than half the votes in the following states: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, DC, HI, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
And the other candidate polled all of the votes in: CA, FL, GA, IL, MA, MI, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TX
Muke (below): Let's do this nice and slowly. If Alaskans get 3x the power with their vote, and Californians get 1.25x the power with their vote, they have to be taking it from somewhere else in the country. In some other state, voters only get .75x the power with their vote. Why? Because it's impossible for everyone to have more than 1x the power with their vote. Your logic becomes flawed when you try to take two examples (Alaska and California) and extend it to the entire country.
Duane Dibbley (below): You say that "a popular vote is not necessarily representative of the entire nation." By counting the entire (voting and nonvoting) populations of counties, you're saying that people who don't vote really would have voted with the majority.
All: In fact, that's the biggest problem with the Electoral college. It converts everybody in the state, whether voter, non-voter, even those voting in the minority, to those voting in the majority. My existance in one state, whether I voted for or against the majority, counts as a vote for the majority. What if I don't agree with the majority of my state? Too bad, my vote counts along with the majority, just because I added 1 to the population of the state. Obviously, the two extra electoral votes each state gets only adds to the problem.
Many states are of the form "winner takes all", in which all the electors for a given state vote for the person who has a majority in the state. This system allows the worst case as seen above and makes it very difficult for any third party to get the majority of a single state, even though they may have a very large following. Furthermore, this "winner takes all" means that the vote of a person in one state that does not tip the balance is worth less than the vote of another person in a different state that does tip the balance. With the electoral college, not everyone's vote is worth the same but rather depends on the state that they live in.
By tradition, most states' electors distribute their votes on a winner-takes-all basis, as mblase wrote. However, Maine's and Nebraska's electors allocate their votes differently. The two votes notionally representing each state's senators are given to the winner. Then, the remaining votes are allocated based on the popular vote winner in each Congressional district of the state in question (currently 2 in Maine, and 3 in Nebraska) -- effectively, a miniature version of the national Electoral College based on the Congressional district map. This split has not actually happened recently, though, as the statewide winner has won each Congressional district as well.
On watching the coverage of this election, I keep hearing about people wanting to get rid of the Electoral College.
To this I say, bah!
The Electoral College gives your vote more power than it deserves.
Look, please, at Florida now. This one state is deciding the next President. I think it was Clinton who said "Nobody will ever be able to say again that their vote doesn't count." And it's because of the Electoral College that this is true.
'But,' you may interject, 'what about the popular vote? The Electoral College may elect a President the people don't really want!'
It's already been asserted that America isn't really a democracy. The truth is actually much worse than this. America isn't just a country; it is a confederacy. (Hence the name United States.) The states belong to the country, and the people belong to the states.
Notice even the Constitution recognizes this: the people vote for the senators and representatives for their states, but when it comes to the presidency, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress..."
The national tally of the popular vote is (IMHO) merely anti-Electoral-College propaganda. The popular vote doesn't mean anything because it isn't supposed to mean anything.
Now, as for what I said about the Electoral College giving your vote more power... It's a kind of 'big fish in a small pond' compared to a 'small fish in a big pond' kind of deal.
Take, for example, Alaska, a small state populationwise, with its three electoral votes and about 230,000 people who voted for President this year. An Alaskan therefore has 1/230,000 of his state's electors. If the electors he wants are chosen, he has 3/538 of the Presidential vote. Multiplying these, we find that an Alaskan can have about 1/41,000,000th of the vote. Given that about 126 million people voted this year in the whole country, voters in Alaska had three times as much power as they would have had in a popular election.
For the opposite extreme, we take California, a large state populationwise, with fifty-four electoral votes and about 9,800,000 voters this year. The Californian has about 1/97,000,000th of the vote, 125% more than a popular election would give them.
Why do smaller states have more power than larger states? Well, they get it because of the way electors are assigned: representatives plus senators. The number of congressmen a state gets is based on population, but the number of senators is always 2. This +2 adds more, proportionally, to smaller states than larger states. Also, there doesn't appear to be an upper limit to representatives, but no state can have less than one, so the smaller states get more than they might "deserve" there, too.
And it is important that smaller states have more power. The system requires candidates to have more widespread appeal than just going for the "big states".
novalis: In a perfectly democratic election, or even an election where electors were directly based on population, then you'd be correct: A voter could not have more than 1/Xth of the vote. But our electoral system adds votes to this at the state level: electoral representation is based on representation in both houses of Congress: not merely population figures (i.e., number of representatives) but also an even two added to every state (i.e., number of senators). This makes the state's votes worth more than it would be going by its population, with more power, proportionally, going to the smaller states. A one-congressman state gets three electors: 3-to-1 representation-to-population, while a fifty-congressman state gets fifty-two electors, 52:50 representation:population. As the state receives more electors, so the voters in the state receive more electoral power (except possibly in the few remaining states without winner-take-all in place). The actual number or percentage of voters is immaterial for this point.
George Dorn and novalis: You both misunderstand me. I don't say that the Electoral College gives more than 1/Xth the vote, where X = the number of voters (which is, as you say, mathematically unsound). I say that the vote under the Electoral College gives more power compared to the popular vote. That is to say, the Electoral College system gives the hypothetical Alaskan voter an equivalent of three votes under the popular vote system.
novalis wrote: All the EC does is redistribute the power. I know you wouldn't support simply giving Alaskans 2 votes each and having a popular-vote election - so why is it different when we hide it in the EC?
Actually, that's the purpose of the EC, to do the equivalent of give voters in lesser states more power. The advantage of "hiding" it in the EC is that the EC's numbers are tied to numbers already in use for representation (i.e., members of the houses of Congress) and automagically update with them.
Elbridge Gerry proposed a plan that would fuse the federal government to the states. The governors could select the electors who would, in turn, elect the President, or the state legislators themselves could select the executive. This too was rejected because the president would answer to the governors or the state legislatures. This would be understandable had the founders been creating a government of "We the States" instead of "We the People."
Many believed the President should be chosen by a method separate from all government so that he could have free agency. One plan was to elect the president through a popular vote, so he could answer to the American people directly. The problem many saw with this was the uninformed, uneducated, backwoods farmers. Who would they elect? Gouverneur Morris felt that the American people would vote according to their national interests. He believed that civic virtue would prevail. Madison felt that voters would play favorites and elect someone from their state to further their personal interests. This favored the northern and larger states.
With a popular majority electing the president, the smaller states, communities, and minority groups would lose all say. Mr. Hamilton's remedy was an electoral system where by the executive would be elected by electors chosen by the people.
The whole decision was given to the Committee of Eleven late in the Convention. This committee came up with an Electoral College as a practical solution. However, it does not operate as they intended because of the rise of political parties.
During the convention, the founders tried to create a republican government rising from the people that would filter and refine the opinions of the people through elected representatives. Since state legislatures would be elected by the people they would not be left out, thus their representatives would decide how to choose the electors. Likely, these men would be educated and experienced men who would know leaders capable of being president.
By requiring that one vote be cast for someone outside their state, the Electoral College tried to avoid sectional divisions. Electors would be better traveled and better informed and could pick people with civic virtue who could lead the entire country. The final decision was made on August 31 and was based on a committee report, a compromise.
Electoral College - Affirmative
The Constitution of the United States of America reads: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The Electoral College is a simple and basic component of our Constitution. It was contemplated for long periods of time by our founding fathers. It is designed, as all democracy should be, to protect the rights of the minority while expressing the will of the majority. It is perhaps the most effective and efficient institution of our government. It is simply a scapegoat because it has no opportunity to protect itself.
Our constitution is the law of our land and the legacy of our founding fathers. The moment we start to dissect when there is no need is disrespectful and detrimental to our society as a whole. Many will argue that the idea is outdated. It has been reformed three times! - and as recently as 1961. It is not outdated, but effective and historical. People might argue that since it has been reformed before, it should be again. This is not the case. As the organization now stands, it is the best for the country and it's people.
States' Rights are upheld by the electoral college. In a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. The highest official elected by popular vote is the State's Governor. This protects the rights of the state, which a direct vote would undermine.
Proposition is futile. The Electoral College is a constitutional aspect and would have to be changed by the senate. Since the senate is run by the small states, which the Electoral College represents, the proposition would be shot down. Minority interests are thence protected.
The electoral college is Effective and Efficient as stands. The Electoral College meets once every four years, at their own capitals. No travel expenses. Many states don't even pay for lunch. They cast two votes in an office and send these to Washington.
Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of a popular support to be elected president.
Thus I stand in the affirmative for keeping and not changing the Electoral College.
Electoral College - Negative
"Bush Sr. was a jerk, Quayle an idiot, Clinton was atrocious and disgusting, most of those who persecuted him were hypocritical, Gore is shallow and weak, Bradley is an idealist, Bush Jr. a fool, and all of the independent candidates act like they're on drugs." This is in result of the Electoral College being inadequate.
The Electoral College Denies Representation! Electors or Elector candidates are chosen because of their loyalty to the predominant party, any third or independent party has no chance at winning, if even the popular vote swayed in that direction.
If one candidates support were heavily concentrated in one geographic region, then even if they had a majority, theoretically, the rest of the (less populace) states could have enough electoral votes to NOT elect that candidate.
The system is not proportioned to voters, but to population. Those who don't care enough to cast a vote should not have the vote of the reigning party forced upon their heads. -- California has 54 votes, Utah has 5, and the District of Columbia has 3.
The Electoral College is failing to accurately reflect the national popular will. The result in 1998, for example, the combined voting age population of the seven least populous jurisdictions (Alaska, Delaware, D.C., North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the 9.6 million voters in Florida. Each Florida voter's vote carried 1/3rd the weight a vote in those other states in deciding the president.
In the 1876 election of Tilden vs. Hayes there was a dispute over the electors in four states. The situation emerged where due to the popular vote Tilden needed on of 22 votes to win, and Hayes needed all 22. The house was split upon this decision and created a new form of electoral election, the Electoral Commission. The commission choose Hayes to be the new Vice President. -- In the 1876 election Grover Cleveland received the majority of the popular voted, but Harrison won the electoral votes and was the president of the entire U.S. population, not just the electors who voted him into office.
The Electoral College is Outdated. The major difference between now and when this institution was invented is the media and communication availability. The average U.S. household has at least one television set.
The way the system works completely monopolizes a two party government. No independent party could ever win the election, even if the got the popular vote.
The policy was instated because of an uneducated and incompetent new citizenship. This is no longer the case. Now citizenship is simply competence. It is your infringed rights, even if politicians don't think you deserve them. You do. Everyone who isn't in prison or not being punished does. It's the basis of our country.
Thus I stand Negative for the Electoral College. It should be updated, changed, and enhanced.
I know this node is pretty long, and I hope I'm not blammed for making it longer, but I dug up an old persuasive essay assignment I did in my junior year of high school (probably late 2002). I thought it was worthwhile reading, and there's no better place to put it but here.
If you think it deserves a downvote, please send me a /msg letting me know why.
One Man, One Vote
In November of last year, over 100 million people across the United States went out to cast their vote for the presidency. After all the votes were counted and recounted and recounted again, Gore had received 50,996,582 total votes. Bush had only received 50,456,062 votes; that was over 500,000 less votes. Through some twist of fate, we now call George Bush "
