Can someone explain why there is a popular vote and the electoral college in deciding the U.S. President?

Question

The thing I don't understand is if a candidate wins the popular vote like in 2000, but doesn't get elected because he loses the electoral college, what is the point of voting? Does the popular vote mean anything? Which one determines who gets elected and why do we need 2 different ways to vote? This is driving me crazy and it is hard to find an answer online that can fully explain my question.

No one still explained how the two systems are connected. So is the popular vote a gimmick, do we even need it because from what you guys are telling me the electoral college is "smarter" than the public, yup that really explains why Bush was elected, he's done so much better than Al Gore would have.

So are you guys saying that the electoral college votes the way the general public votes, then why do we need it? Why do we need two systems for one election?

I sort of understand now, but the thing is I think it is still flawed because if the voters in the electoral college just vote the way the popular vote goes, it still is unfair for bigger states, no? Also, don't the people in the electoral colleges have ties with parties? So like if a swing state decided to go with a Republican candidate and the voter in the electoral college was a democrat, wouldn't that mess up the popular vote?

Answer 1

Here is the reason. After we declaired our independence what we were was thriteen individual states. In reality, that was thirteen separate governments or separate countries. Each lead by a Governor.

The decision to Federalize was to form a formal union of the several states and consolidate them into a single country called the United States.

Well, during the Constitutional Convention, (that was meeting of delegates from the states to write a Constitution) many accomodations had to be made. Some states were larger than others. Some had larger populations than others.

One of the biggest fears the Founding Fathers had was what was called the "tyranny of the majority". They sought to always have the rights of the minority respected.

In the orininal Constitution the people did not vote for the President at all. The President was elected by the Senate. This system was proven to be flawed and was replaced by the current system in 1804.

Basically, the purpose of it was to balance out the power among the states. Each states has Electoral votes in proportion to the population size. This give somewhat of an edge to the more populous states but not total power to elect the President as they might have if the popular vote was the only factor.

For those who live in large population states who still think this is not fair, a very good case could be made for granting each state equal electoral votes since all states are equally important. Or maybe more votes to the states that have been states longer like some kind of seniority.

This Electoral College system we have now is the best compromise. In fact, our entire political system in America is based on the principle of compromise.

In practice, most states use a winner take all system. Whomever wins the popular vote in that state gets all the Electoral Votes. There are only a few exceptions that use a proportional method.

So, your popular vote counts in your state and your state's Electoral votes count in the National Election.

I hope this clears it up for you. If you don't vote you risk having your states Electoral Votes go to someone you do not want.

.

Answer 2

In History class in High School, where we learned about the constitution and all the things the founding fathers (you know, those old dead white men), put the wheels of power into action, they were so sick and tired of the way that every European was treated they vowed to make a new and living government. (Yes, the constitution is a living document) The power was to the people that owned land and the early voters were just the men. Remember women didn't get the right to vote until the 20's. Blacks and other nationalities (Italians, Irish, French, and Spanish) had no voting rights either. The founding fathers saw a minor glitch here and chose to develop an electoral college, to pool the votes from their states and by the delegates sent to the capital, they would elect the president, according to the peoples vote in their state. Each state was given a value depending on the number of voters per state, some have not changed much since the beginning, but as states were added to the union, more electoral votes were awarded. California didn't have many votes when it became a state, but it has more than New York, one of the first states, now. The fluctuation of population causes this re numeration every 10 years (US Census Bureau). Just because the popular vote is high for one candidate over another, in a state with few electoral votes, doesn't mean that those votes will push the candidate over the number needed to be elected.

Answer 3

There are some good answers here. The Electoral College is under attack by many who don't understand it. As previously mentioned, the Electoral College gives a slight advantage to the smaller population states. This prevents states like California, New York, Illinois and a few others from controlling the election.

Few Americans seem to realise that the president presides over the states, not the people. He is elected by the states, not the people. The people decide how their state is supposed to vote.

The problem with the two party system is that it is really a one party system. The leadership of both the Democrat and Republican parties are affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is also in bed with major media. This explains why it is almost impossible for a third party to win the presidency, and why both parties try to prevent any candidate who doesn't speak the party line from getting the nomination. For example, look at what the Republican leadership, and mainstream media are doing to Ron Paul. They either ignore him, or they write him off as a fringe candidate.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who will work to restore FREEDOM. Ron Paul is for Constitutional government. He is opposed to perpetual undeclared wars around the globe. He is against a foreign policy that provokes terrorism. He is against the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the National ID Card, and torture.

Answer 4

Under the current system, the president is picked by a few key swing states, with approximately an equal number of voters who are likely to vote Democratic and Republican. - In recent years, the key swing states have been Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Whoever wins two out three of those states becomes president. That is the way it worked in 2000 and 2004, and it will probably work the same way in 2008.

After the primaries, the candidates ignore both large and small states which are not in play. ("spectator states). - For example, Idaho, Utah , Texas and California will be ignored by the candidates after the primaries, because they know which way their electoral votes are going to go. -

Since the candidates can concentrate their efforts in the swing states, running for president is a little less expensive than it would be with a popular vote system.

Answer 5

Frankly, I believe that the only correction that needs to be made is that the electoral votes awarded should reflect the popular vote in a state. Most of our states award electoral votes winner take all. That means that in a state say like California, which has 55 electoral votes, 50% + 1 votes would give all 55 electoral votes to the victor. Ronald Reagan won election to the presidency with 75% of the electoral vote (proclaimed a landslide), but in actuality only garnered a little over 50% of the popular vote (not even close to a landslide). George W Bush, lost the popular vote, but won the election because of the distortion caused by the electoral system. It is these kinds of distortions that bring criticism to the electoral system. I personally would find it an embarrassment to win an election in which I knew more than 50% of the people didn't support me. Actually, a directed apportionment of the electoral votes or moving to a popular vote would tend to decentralize the importance of the big electoral vote states because the windfalls of large numbers of electoral votes couldn't be captured by narrow victories. Every vote would count. I support the idea of apportionment over popular vote because of the poor voter turnout in the United States. If I actually thought that everyone or nearly everyone registered and got out to vote, then I would say go popular. The electoral system used with apportionment would help compensate for low voter turnout by helping to assure some voice for less populous states. Perhaps, we should look at further apportioning electoral votes according to population that actually votes. Using California again, if only 50% of eligible Californian's register and vote, perhaps they should receive 26 electoral votes instead of the available 55? Perhaps this would encourage citizens to register and vote?

Answer 6

The electoral college was established to ensure that the person elected President would represent the various, diverse interests of all the states in the Union, not just those with large population centers. Because of the electoral college, candidates can't just focus on a few large populations centers while campaigning. Because they need to win the electoral votes of certain number of states, you find them flying all over the country, meeting with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, California, New York, Florida, etc.

There have been a number of times in the history of our country when the winner of the popular vote has not won the majority of the electoral college votes. The map of the 2000 election showing the counties won by Bush helps to illustrate the beauty of the electoral college. It ensures that we don't continually elect a President representing just the large urban areas or just the coastal areas of the country.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap2000.htm

This really helps show that major urban areas tend to be more liberal. Rural areas/small towns tend to be more conservative.

Answer 7

The original writers of the constitution didn't really trust the general public with the final decision. They expected multiple candidates for president . With no clear winner the Electoral College would always be picking the winner. Until the two party system came to be the norm, now almost always one of the candidates has over 50% of the popular vote.

Answer 8

Each state, depending on the population, gets a certain amount of electoral votes. (Why the census is so important). So after that state votes, the electoral voters choose the highest and vote that way. It is made to work if the population is correct. Again, why the census is so damn important. You get represented by the population= more people, more electoral votes.

However,,,,,changing the voting machine and all that is different.
Check out the documentary Hacking democracy fro HBO, it must be out in DVD by now

Answer 9

The national popular vote means nothing as far as the election goes. The media likes to use it because it's a very attractive concept. The popular vote in the individual states decides who get the delegates in that state. There are a couple of states that split their delegates in roughly the percentage of the popular vote there, but most are winner take all.

Answer 10

If it was based solely on the popular vote, candidates would never have to campaign outside the largest cities.