Electoral College

[bicker]

Def.

 

[ICF]

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.

Perhaps, but they still control almost enough electoral votes to get the President elected....

The 5 biggest # of electoral states:

CA - 55
TX - 34
NY - 31
FL - 27
PA - 21

Total up to 168 votes or would leave someone 102 votes short

The next 5 biggest (used since 3 states all seem to have 15)

IL - 21
MI - 17
GA - 15
NC - 15
NJ - 15

These 5 add up to 83

This means that 10 states in theory (if they all voted the same way) could control 251 of the votes and be 19 votes short of electing a president by themselves.

So, either way the "big states" will still determine the course of the election with or w/o the electoral college.

It would take winning a lot of states with 3 - 5 votes (which includes AK, HI, MT, ID, NV, UT, NM, WY, ND, SD, NE, WV, VT, NH, RI, DE & DC) to offset someone winning California or Texas.

 

[Master Mason]

Perhaps, but they still control almost enough electoral votes to get the President elected....

The 5 biggest # of electoral states:

CA - 55
TX - 34
NY - 31
FL - 27
PA - 21

Total up to 168 votes or would leave someone 102 votes short

The next 5 biggest (used since 3 states all seem to have 15)

IL - 21
MI - 17
GA - 15
NC - 15
NJ - 15

These 5 add up to 83

This means that 10 states in theory (if they all voted the same way) could control 251 of the votes and be 19 votes short of electing a president by themselves.

So, either way the "big states" will still determine the course of the election with or w/o the electoral college.

It would take winning a lot of states with 3 - 5 votes (which includes AK, HI, MT, ID, NV, UT, NM, WY, ND, SD, NE, WV, VT, NH, RI, DE & DC) to offset someone winning California or Texas.

It happened the last 2 elections where Bush lost both NY and CA.

 

[tedhowe]

It happened the last 2 elections where Bush lost both NY and CA.

And Pennsylvania, so that's 3 of the top 5

 

[luvmyfam444]

Can't they still vote against what the state says? If they (whoever the heck it is that cast the official electoral votes) can't they still vote different that what we did? I thought they could still choose to vote however they wanted even if most of the state voted another way...

 

[bicker]

I believe electors are compelled to cast their votes as they promised.

 

[corndog]

Can't they still vote against what the state says? If they (whoever the heck it is that cast the official electoral votes) can't they still vote different that what we did? I thought they could still choose to vote however they wanted even if most of the state voted another way...

When you vote for president, you're voting for a slate of "electors". The electors comprise the electoral college. Each candidate has his own slate of electors. If Obama wins the state, one slate of electors goes, if McCain wins the state, a different slate of electors goes.

Only highly loyal people are chosen to be electors. Theoretically, an elector could vote for whomever he or she chooses. That's why they are selected carefully.

After the 2000 election there was a lot of pressure brought to bear on Bush electors stating the moral thing to do would be to vote Gore because he won the popular vote. Obviously they all stood firm. But it could happen.

 

[corndog]

Perhaps, but they still control almost enough electoral votes to get the President elected....

The 5 biggest # of electoral states:

CA - 55
TX - 34
NY - 31
FL - 27
PA - 21

Total up to 168 votes or would leave someone 102 votes short

The next 5 biggest (used since 3 states all seem to have 15)

IL - 21
MI - 17
GA - 15
NC - 15
NJ - 15

These 5 add up to 83

This means that 10 states in theory (if they all voted the same way) could control 251 of the votes and be 19 votes short of electing a president by themselves.

So, either way the "big states" will still determine the course of the election with or w/o the electoral college.

It would take winning a lot of states with 3 - 5 votes (which includes AK, HI, MT, ID, NV, UT, NM, WY, ND, SD, NE, WV, VT, NH, RI, DE & DC) to offset someone winning California or Texas.

OH has 21.

 

[bicker]

I believe electors are compelled to cast their votes as they promised.

Theoretically, an elector could vote for whomever he or she chooses.

Hmmm... I checked into this a bit more... this is what I found:

The electors have no Constitutional obligation to vote for the candidate to whom they're pledged. In 29 states, there is not even any local law binding them to it. The remaining states do have statutes ordering electors to fulfill their pledges, but only five states impose any penalties if they don't.

Eight times in the last hundred years, electors have broken their pledge. In the year 2000, one California elector cast her vote for some little-known Democratic party worker instead of for Al Gore, as a way of protesting irregularities in Florida.

[Source: Encarta.]

 

[tedhowe]

Actually, in nearly half the states, it still is not required that electors vote for whom they pledged before the election. When they don't they are referred to as "faithless electors".

Here's a good reference I found.

In the history of the country, there have only been 156 individual electors that did not vote for the candidate they pledged for. Nearly half of those were because the candidate had died before the electoral college voted. Of the rest, only 8 have been in the last 96 years - and only 4 since 1972.

Most of these faithless electors changed their vote as a form of protest, either over their party's candidate or some other cause that they wanted to bring attention to.

From what I can see, none of these votes has ever had an impact on the outcome of an election.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm

 

[corndog]

In the year 2000, one California elector cast her vote for some little-known Democratic party worker instead of for Al Gore, as a way of protesting irregularities in Florida.

Cool! I'm jealous.

 

[NotUrsula]

I personally would prefer that the winner-take-all practice was dropped in favor of some form of split (probably along Congressional District lines, for the most part. That would give each state two "bonus" electoral votes that could be given to the party that carries the most districts.)

I think that winner-take-all is very locally divisive, especially in the big states that have regional variations in party preference. Winner-take-all isn't actually mandated by law in most states; it is just customary.

The Electoral College system isn't about balancing the interests of big states vs. small ones, it is about urban vs. rural, and it always has been. These days those conflicts arise within states, too. In Missouri, for instance, there is what is known as the "Outstate" vote; that is, anyplace that ISN'T Kansas City and St. Louis. The Outstate Vote (and Outstate interests) are in perpetual conflict with what the voters in St. Louis and KC want, but taken together, those metro area's voters can carry an issue in direct opposition to the rest of the state.

 

[bicker]

Everything I've ever read or learned about the Electoral College indicates that it was established in the context of the Connecticut Compromise, to balance the interests of larger states and smaller states.

I'd be very interested in reading historical accounts that contradict this and assert that there is some urban/rural aspect to the constitution of the Electoral College.

 

[NotUrsula]

Oh, it was. This is all in how you define "large" and "small". It was an issue of population that drove the compromise, not square mileage. Population density is greater in urban areas, which is why Rhode Island is a "bigger" state than Montana in electoral terms.

 

[rkwells]

OK...I haven't read the whole thread yet but I am going out on a limb to ask a dumb question...Obama and McCain are both senators...how do ya think they will cast their votes for their states? Will they/Can they just vote for themselves no matter what?

 

[Master Mason]

OK...I haven't read the whole thread yet but I am going out on a limb to ask a dumb question...Obama and McCain are both senators...how do ya think they will cast their votes for their states? Will they/Can they just vote for themselves no matter what?

The Senators don't get to vote in the Electoral college, it is just the numbers of senators and congressmen that are from each state.

 

[NotUrsula]

Obama and McCain are both senators...how do ya think they will cast their votes for their states? Will they/Can they just vote for themselves no matter what?

They are Senators, but they are NOT Electors, so they don't vote in the College.

There is an elector position created for each *position* of Senator and Representative from each state -- they use the number of Congressional Representatives + the number of Senators to decide how many Electors each state will get. However, those Elector positions are not necessary filled by the actual Senators and Representatives of those states. They can be, but usually are not, and no Presidential candidate can ever be an Elector. Usually the persons who fill the Elector positions are people who you have never heard of, but who are active in the state party machinery.

 

[rkwells]

Thanks for the info MasterMason and Not Ursula!