Things that I don't understand about the US election

[Amberle3]

Okay, this isn't a debate at all, nor stating any preference on who should win. I can't even vote in this election after all.

I'm sitting here watching the coverage on CNN. There are polls in the country still open and they're talking about results from the polls that have closed. We can't do that here - networks have to wait until the polls across the country have closed before they can start reporting results. I think the theory is that by reporting results when some polls are still open it could influence the votes of those who could still make it to their polls. So it's just a little confusing to me.

More confusing to me is why the % of vote doesn't necessarily correspond to how many electoral votes there are. Currently Bush is in the lead in both, but earlier he had few electoral votes but a greater % of votes. How does that happen?

I'm watching with interest, but I'm still confused

 

[WDWAurora]

You raise a good point about the reports, this is probably just the "traditional" way it's been done here.

The percentages are like this: When a candidate wins a state, they get all of that states electoral votes (except in the states that have that up for a vote too), so percentage doesn't necessarily make any difference at all. Here in NC, Bush won, so he gets all 12 EVs as opposed to splitting them between candidates.

 

[maci]

I live here, and I am confused!! You are right! It really makes no sense!
I wish it was done on pure popular vote!

 

[jrydberg]

As to the issue of trailing in electoral votes but leading in popular vote, that's just a matter of how many votes have been counted in the various states.

As a simple example, if the results from Alabama are 1,000 for Bush and 2 for Kerry and the results from New York are 900 for Kerry and 2 for Bush, Kerry would be leading in *projected* electoral votes (since NY has considerably more electoral votes than Alabama) but trailing in popular vote.

Bear in mind that the electoral vote numbers are *projected* numbers. Obviously they've taken great care not to have a repeat of 2000, but they're still not final numbers.

 

[one_cat]

There is a very good reason that electoral votes are used instead of popular votes. That has to do with giving small states a voice in the election. An election can't simply be won if New York, LA, and Chicago vote for the same candidate. Although it does seem a bit confusing when a candidate can win the popular vote but lose the election. Just for the record, 2000 was NOT the first time that has happened.

 

[LMC]

Just my 2cents:
I think that they should hold any results until all polls are closed just as the OP stated. The way it is done now can affect voters decisions in states that are still open for voting; no matter which way the votes go it shouldn't be allowed.

I also think it should be on a popular vote!!! Maybe they'll change it one day? Especially after all the problems in recent elections.

 

[GeorgeG]

I have to agree with LMC

 

[cheyita]

I agree about report the results.

I think the Electoral College is a great, fair way to hold an election in a country that is made of 50 separate states joined together in a union.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by LMC
Just my 2cents:
I think that they should hold any results until all polls are closed just as the OP stated. The way it is done now can affect voters decisions in states that are still open for voting; no matter which way the votes go it shouldn't be allowed.

I also think it should be on a popular vote!!! Maybe they'll change it one day? Especially after all the problems in recent elections.

I agree witht he first and disagree with the second.

What I would really like to see is a single 36 hour voting period that encompassed the entire USA, including Hawaii and Alaska. No results should be released to anyone until the polls closed, simultaneously in every precinct in the USA. I also think it ought to be unlawful to perform 'exit polling,' or if it is done, to embargo the results until all polls are closed.

As for the electoral college - I think this is one of the greatest ideas the founders had. Doing away with it would be the first step in losing our republic. We need to have the balance of interests built into the system that the EC provides. Without it a very few urban centers would control our executive brance of government. This would be a disaster. Of course, I can see why democrats would like this, since this is thier only source of votes anyway - doing away with the EC would put the democrats in control forever.

 

[txSleepingBeauty]

but with the electoral college system in place my vote today basically didn't count. Why should someone in the the rural US's vote count more than mine? I just feel discouraged to know that I live in the 4th largest city in this country and saw neither hide nor hair of either candidate because it was asumed that I would vote republican.

And don't large states have the advantage anyway, even with the EC? think about it, is Florida more important than Montana (in terms of votes) yes...how many people in those big unpopulated states see their candidates. Even with the EC if you win the big ones you win the whole shebang.

maybe a system where a percentage of electoral votes dependant on the popular votes would be awarded would be a better idea. I for one know that I'm dissatisfied with the current process of electing a president.

 

[JimB.]

maybe a system where a percentage of electoral votes dependant on the popular votes would be awarded would be a better idea.

This option currently exists IF a state decides to change it's constitution to allow it. I believe that 2 states (not sure which ones) have done that.

 

[Dan Murphy]

I see pluses and minuses on the EC, good 'arguments' from both opinions. But I fully agree that the discussion of who is winning should be held till polls are closed everywhere there is voting. Hard to do in our desire for instantaneous communications and 'now' answers, but the idea is good, IMO.

 

[puffkin]

It is frustrating, but the electoral college truly is a great thing.

Would either of the candidates even care about Ohio, Wisconsin or any of those other swing states if it was purely a popular vote? Of course not, they would only be focussing on the hugely populated geographic areas. The electoral college allows all states have some say in the election.

 

[Keli]

Coming from a rual area I am thankful for the electorial college. It is the policy of the US to not allow the rights of the majority to overtake the rights of the minority and the electorial college is one way of helping ensure that. It's not foolproof, by any means, but it is a help and as a republic we should not abolish it in my opinion.

 

[AC7179]

My husband told me that sometimes the electoral college doesn't vote the way the popular vote goes......for example, even if Texas went to Bush---the members of the electoral college still have the right to vote for Kerry? Is that true? He says that it is not common, but has happened before.

 

[LMC]

I agree with txSleepingBeauty: Some people probably feel like their vote doesn't count so why bother. I feel that way too since it is an EC based system but I know that if I don't cast my vote then my person may not win my state hence the EC's for this state. So a vote counts in that regard but in elections when you have the majority of the people voting one way but the EC turned out another then it seems as though your vote doesn't count.


AC7179: I think the EC can cast their vote to whomever they chose no matter what the popular votes are. Any political gurus out there?

 

[Mary Ellen]

While the EC may not be perfect, I do think it works. As DH pointed out, in a tight election the ENTIRE country would need to be re-counted, not just a state (Florida/Ohio?)

I do NOT like National results broadcast before polls are closed in EVERY state. For my first several National elections I lived in Seattle. I don't remember there being a Presidental election when it was not decided before our polls closed. I know people who changed who they were going to vote for (since it was already decided anyway) because they wanted to say they 'voted for the winner'. WRONG - on so many levels.