Electoral College

[SeaShelley]

Would someone please explain this to me ?

Break it down S L O W L Y........I really just don't get it !

 

[Acklander]

Each state has a different amount of votes in the electoral college. When you vote, you're voting how your state is going to go, so it's all or nothing. This is how Bush was able to win the presidency the first time around without having the popular vote.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

We homeschool. Here's one of the places my 10 year old is using to learn about the election process. It's simple and informative.

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/government/theelectoralcollege.htm

 

[bicker]

Each state has a number of electoral votes proportional to the number of members it has in Congress, including both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Consequently, smaller states have a little bit more say than larger states with regard to who becomes President of the United States (since representation in the House of Representatives is proportional to state population, while representation in the Senate is two for each state regardless of population).

Conceptually, the election of the President of the United States is 51 separate elections (50 states, plus DC). In all but two states, the candidate who wins the state wins all of that states electoral votes. (In those two cases, there is a way the state proportionally divides its electoral votes.)

 

[JimmyPicker]

Each state is given a number of electoral college votes. This number depends on the population of that state. California has many more people than Rhode Island, so California has many more electoral votes.

When your state is done voting, they tally the votes, and the candidate that got the most votes "wins" that state. This is why when watching the news and they show a map of the USA, some states will be blue and some will be red.

The winning candidate gets all the electoral votes for that state. You need a certain number of votes to win the election.

 

[asta]

In most states the winner of the popular vote gets all of the electoral college votes. I think there are at least two states who award their electoral college votes in the same percentage as the popular vote in their state. Also the number of electoral votes that each state has reflects the population of that state.

 

[ntsammy5]

It's a big party school in Upstate New York. They have great keggers!

 

[bicker]

The two states that split their electoral votes are NE and ME. It is actually not a smart idea for most states, since that makes the state even less attractive to campaign in (and generally states like having candidates pay attention to them). Splitting the electoral votes basically transforms a larger state into a number of smaller states, from the standpoint of political campaigns. Of course, these two states happen to be small to start with (5 electoral votes and 3 electoral votes) so they're not really losing very much, and, of course, proportionally allocating the votes is "fairer".

BTW, I think calling the allocation of electoral votes in ME and NE "proportional" is actually not correct. I believe that each Congressional District elects one elector, based on who wins the popular vote in that district (that's three of the electoral votes) and then the two electoral votes attributable to the Senators are at-large, i.e., they go to whichever candidate wins the popular vote for the whole state.

I just want to emphasize something: Electoral votes allocated to state are not proportional to the state's population. For the reason I mentioned earlier, smaller states get more electoral representation than larger states.

 

[ICF]

I just want to emphasize something: Electoral votes allocated to state are not proportional to the state's population. For the reason I mentioned earlier, smaller states get more electoral representation than larger states.

I'm not sure if your statement is incorrect or if I just don't understand how you worded it.

It makes it sound as if Rhode Island (which has 4 electoral votes) has more votes then California (55), TX (34) or NY(31) and that's just not correct.

The states with the most people still have the most electoral votes....so why not just go by he (or she) that has the most individual votes wins???

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

 

[bicker]

Electoral votes allocated to state are not proportional to the state's population.

I'm not sure if your statement is incorrect or if I just don't understand how you worded it.

It makes it sound as if Rhode Island (which has 4 electoral votes) has more votes then California (55), TX (34) or NY(31) and that's just not correct.

The issue I raised is that the electoral votes are not proportional to the state's population.

Wikipedia has a great table that shows exactly what I'm saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

Look at the column "Pop. per electoral vote". Note how larger states have one electoral vote per 600,000 - 700,000 people, while smaller states have one electoral vote per 175,000 - 300,000 people. People in smaller states get more than twice as much say in who becomes President of the United States than folks from larger states have.

The states with the most people still have the most electoral votes....so why not just go by he (or she) that has the most individual votes wins???

And the above information explains why: Very deliberately, smaller states have more say than larger states. (The same applies to legislation as it goes through the US Senate, by the way.) Makes you want to consider splitting your state down into smaller states, eh? )

Fun with math: The nine largest states make up more than 50% of US population, but they only have 239 electoral votes, 31 votes short of a majority.

 

[corndog]

The two states that split their electoral votes are NE and ME.

Isn't is Colorado and Maine? Colorado did it 2004. Or maybe they didn't like it and got rid of it?

 

[bicker]

From Wikipedia:

"Nebraska is one of two states (the other being Maine) that allow for a split in the electoral vote. Since 1991, two of Nebraska's five electoral votes are awarded based on the winner of the statewide election while the other three go to the highest vote-getter in each of the state's three congressional districts."

"Since 1969, two of Maine's four electoral votes are awarded based on the winner of the statewide election. The other two go to the highest vote-winner in each of the state's two congressional districts."

I don't recall ever hearing anything about Colorado splitting its electoral votes.

 

[corndog]

I see now that Colorado voters rejected a ballot initiative that would have adopted the method.

The group that sponsored the measure was called "Coloradoans Against a Really Stupid Idea". That's funny.

 

[tedhowe]

Bicker,

I think it's more appropriate to say that the individual voters in the smaller states have more say in the election because the smaller states have proportionately higher representation in the Electoral College than their overall percentage of the national population would warrant.

It's certainly not true to say that the smaller states have MORE influence in the outcome of the election, just proportionately more.

 

[bicker]

I think it's more appropriate to say that the individual voters in the smaller states have more say in the election because the smaller states have proportionately higher representation in the Electoral College than their overall percentage of the national population would warrant.

That sounds good to me.

 

[SeaShelley]

Thanks all. I guess I should amend my first post to say it's not so much that I "don't get it", but that I "don't get why whe still do this". Really, does it make sense anymore ?

The site that crazyforgoofy posted makes a great case for why it should go away.....

 

[bicker]

... I "don't get why whe still do this".

Why? Figure that half of the states get more say in who becomes President than the other states, the way things are now, so why would any of them be interested in changing the system to make it so they get less say in who becomes President. And to change it would require not just half of the states to agree, but two-thirds.

 

[Master Mason]

Thanks all. I guess I should amend my first post to say it's not so much that I "don't get it", but that I "don't get why whe still do this". Really, does it make sense anymore ?

The site that crazyforgoofy posted makes a great case for why it should go away.....

Yes there is a reason, it was to protect the interests of the smaller states. Bicker listed 4 states that compose more than 50% of the population, do you want those 4 states deciding everything when the needs, wants and desires of the people of CA are vastly different than those of say North Dakota?

 

[bicker]

Actually, nine states make up 50% of the population.

 

[Master Mason]

Actually, nine states make up 50% of the population.

Ok thanks, I stand corrected, but you get the idea. The people in the other 48 states (sorry couldn't resist its really 41 plus DC) don't want those 9 to make all the decisions.