jumpman3000 asked this question on 11/8/2000:
question about this? i understnd that this involves in each county, the votes, and who ever gets the most counties or electorial districts, gets all the votes. now with the college someone said that this derrived from the constitution. each countie when the vote for a president indeed actulaly votes for a rep to vote for president. would this happen? or is it just they r strictly going by electorial votes?
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/8/2000:
How does the Electoral College work?
Basically, each state’s popular vote determines which candidate gets all of the state’s electoral votes; if a candidate wins by one vote or one million votes, he gets all of that state’s electoral votes. The electoral vote count equals the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators (which means the electoral vote is proportional to population for large states, with a minimum of 3 votes for small states). The Electoral College adds up the electoral votes in each state; if one candidate gets a majority (270 votes), he wins; if none do, the House of Representatives decides. To further complicate matters, Maine and Nebraska split their electoral vote, instead of the winner-takes-all system in the other states.
Which counts more, the electoral vote or the popular vote?
If Bush wins the electoral vote, Bush becomes President, even if Gore wins the popular vote, which it appears he has.
What if there’s an electoral vote tie?
In the unlikely event of a 269-to-269 tie in the electoral vote, the House of Representatives will decide who becomes President. In that case, Bush is sure to win, since each state gets one vote, and Bush leads in 31 states (with 26 needed to win). The House vote does not necessarily reflect the popular vote nor the electoral vote; each state will cast its single vote for whichever party has a majority in that state’s congressional delegation. A state-by-state prediction of the House votes can be surmised from the current House delegations. By that measure, Bush leads 26 states to 17, with 7 evenly split. These will also change in Tuesday’s election, but the current party representation is a good indicator of the expected results. At this point, an electoral tie is impossible; it all hinges on Florida.
If the popular vote doesn’t count, why should I vote?
The popular vote does count, since that is the means by which the electoral vote is determined in each state. The state-by-state popular vote is why the candidates are focusing on “battleground states” (those in which the popular vote is too close to call still, such as Florida, Oregon, and Arkansas). But since the overall popular vote isn’t relevant, states in which the electoral vote is a foregone conclusion have not been visited much by the candidates.
Shouldn’t we change this outdated electoral system?
Not necessarily. That would require amending the Constitution, and there is unlikely to be enough support to do that (amending the Constitution is hard work). If Gore wins an electoral victory while Bush wins the popular vote, it’s possible there will be sufficient initiative to make an Amendment. A more likely result would be that Bush comes back again in 2004; that was the basis of Andrew Jackson’s victory in 1828, after losing the electoral vote while winning the popular vote in 1824. Rather than amend the Constitution, states could simply follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and decide electoral votes proportional to the popular vote instead of on a winner-takes-all basis. That would effectively remove the Electoral College without amending the Constitution.
Source: http://issues2000.org/recent.htm#Electoral
jumpman3000 asked this follow-up question on 11/9/2000:
okay then, but first: a) who choses the electial preps to vote? also, in florida, they are counting all votes, but that works only for the popular, instead of the electorial. wouldn't they be counting the votes in each district, then count up, how many districts a piece, put 'em together, then decide who gets the full 25? so this whole recount could be useless correct??
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/9/2000:
The people who are electors are chosen in advance in two slates, one set for the Democrats and one set for the Republicans. When you vote for Gore, you're actually voting to send the Democratic slate to the electoral college, while a vote for Bush sends the Republican slate.
The parties choose the people who serve as electors. They're generally party loyalists, so the chances of "unfaithful electors" (voting against their committed candidate) are pretty slim.
The recount in Florida is indeed for the popular vote. That's what determines where Florida's electoral votes go. If Gore or Bush win FLorida's popular vote by even one vote, they get all of Florida's 25 electoral votes, and hence the presidency, since the rest of the electors are already decided and split pretty evenly.
The way you describe districts is the way the electoral college works with states -- each state is like the district at the federal level. But at the state level, it's a straight popular vote.
In short:
No, the recount is not useless -- every vote really does matter. Bush is only 400 votes ahead on Thursday afternoon -- a pretty slim margin in a state with 6 million votes. Gore could make that up with the spolied ballots in Palm Beach County, or Bush could pull way ahead with the overseas military absentee ballots.
jumpman3000 asked this follow-up question on 11/12/2000:
i understand all that, but i thought there where actually electorial districts, where if a canditate won that, he has one that out of sday 25 (in florida's case). so actually it is by popular vote, just for electorial college seats. Up here in Canada the electorial process is alot easier, and alot less of a mess. thnks
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/12/2000:
No, there's no such thing as electoral districts. It's all statewide.
The NUMBER of electoral votes is determined by the NUMBER of congressional districts (plus 2, for the two senators), which is the source of this misconception.
AND, in two state, Maine and Nebraska, there ARE electoral districts -- whoever gets the most votes in each congressional district gets one electoral vote for that district, then whoever gets the most votes overall in the state gets the two "floating" electoral votes. Maine went unanimously for Gore under that system (it only has 2 congressional districts, and both voted for Gore). In Nebraska, which has 3 electoral districts, I thought Gore got 1 and Bush got 2, and Bush got the 2 floating votes, for a total of 4 to 1 for Bush. But the news reports all show Nebraska at 5-0 for Bush, so maybe I'm wrong on that.
I suspect that if people remain fed up with the electoral college, that many states will convert over to the Maine & Nebraska system of electoral districts. If a few big states (NY, CA, FL, IL, TX) do that, there will never again be a popuar victory combined with an electoral loss. That would be a much simpler way to achieve that goal, rather than have a constitutional amendment.
roger794 asked this question on 11/12/2000:
would you explain in layman terms what is the electorial college, is it by population, representatives etc
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/12/2000:
1) Who are electors ?
They're political appointees, basically, chosen by each party.
2) How are they picked ?
Each party decides. When you vote for Gore, for example, you're actually voting for an elector representing teh Democrats. So the Democrats pick electors who will loyally vote for Gore. They almost always do the loyal thing, but they don't have to.
3) ON WHAT DO THEY BASE THEIR VOTE.?
On your vote. It's all just a pretense now; your vote for Bush, for example, is filtered thru the elector. But basically, you vote for Bush and the elector who you actually voted for, goes and votes for Bush.
4) DO THEY REPRESENT PEOPLE OF AN AREA ?
They represent your whole state. Your state sends electors EITHER all for Gore OR all for Bush, depending on the majority vote in your state.
5) WHAT GOOD IS MY VOTE IF THEY CAN VOTE THE WAY THEY WANT ?
They CAN vote any way they want. but they DON'T. They would be kicked out of the party if they voted differently than they're supposed to (especially if it made a difference in the outcome). And even if one elector acts screwy, the rest won't, so your state's electors will vote the way your state did. You might ask this same question about your Senator -- he CAN vote any way he wants, but he's answerable back to you if he goes against your wishes!
6) Are they picked because of their political
thinking?
They're just party representatives. They're partisan, meaning loyal to one party. So yes, of course, they think the way the party does.
tinankids asked this question on 11/25/2000:
What are some good things about the Electoral College? What are some bad things? What do you think overall? Thanks.
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/25/2000:
How does the Electoral College work?
Basically, each state’s popular vote determines which
candidate gets all of the state’s electoral votes; if a candidate
wins by one vote or one million votes, he gets all of that
state’s electoral votes. The electoral vote count equals the
number of Representatives plus the number of Senators (which
means the electoral vote is proportional to population for large
states, with a minimum of 3 votes for small states). The
Electoral College adds up the electoral votes in each state; if
one candidate gets a majority (270 votes), he wins; if none
do, the House of Representatives decides. To further
complicate matters, Maine and Nebraska split their electoral
vote, instead of the winner-takes-all system in the other
states.
Which counts more, the electoral vote or the popular vote?
If Bush wins the electoral vote, Bush becomes President, even
if Gore wins the popular vote, which it appears he has.
What if there’s an electoral vote tie?
In the unlikely event of a 269-to-269 tie in the electoral vote,
the House of Representatives will decide who becomes
President. In that case, Bush is sure to win, since each state
gets one vote, and Bush leads in 31 states (with 26 needed to
win). The House vote does not necessarily reflect the popular
vote nor the electoral vote; each state will cast its single vote
for whichever party has a majority in that state’s congressional
delegation. A state-by-state prediction of the House votes can
be surmised from the current House delegations. By that
measure, Bush leads 26 states to 17, with 7 evenly split.
These will also change in Tuesday’s election, but the current
party representation is a good indicator of the expected
results. At this point, an electoral tie is impossible; it all hinges
on Florida.
If the popular vote doesn’t count, why should I vote?
The popular vote does count, since that is the means by which
the electoral vote is determined in each state. The
state-by-state popular vote is why the candidates are
focusing on “battleground states” (those in which the popular
vote is too close to call still, such as Florida, Oregon, and
Arkansas). But since the overall popular vote isn’t relevant,
states in which the electoral vote is a foregone conclusion
have not been visited much by the candidates.
Shouldn’t we change this outdated electoral system?
Not necessarily. That would require amending the Constitution,
and there is unlikely to be enough support to do that
(amending the Constitution is hard work). If Gore wins an
electoral victory while Bush wins the popular vote, it’s possible
there will be sufficient initiative to make an Amendment. A
more likely result would be that Bush comes back again in
2004; that was the basis of Andrew Jackson’s victory in 1828,
after losing the electoral vote while winning the popular vote in
1824. Rather than amend the Constitution, states could simply
follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and decide electoral
votes proportional to the popular vote instead of on a
winner-takes-all basis. That would effectively remove the
Electoral College without amending the Constitution.
Source: http://issues2000.org/recent.htm#Electoral
tinankids rated this answer:
tinankids asked this follow-up question on 11/25/2000:
If ammending the constitution was not an issue,what then would be your reason for keeping the Electoral College?
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/27/2000:
1) It gives more power to small states, which was an important compromise in creating the United States (that's the same compromise that gives 2 senators even to small states).
2) It forces candidates to campaign nationally instead of regionally. That was the intent of the Founders; to avoid a regional "favorite son".
tinankids asked this follow-up question on 11/27/2000:
Great answer. I agree with you too. Thank you
JesseGordon gave this response on 11/28/2000:
I heard a GOP House member on the radio this morning describing Hillary's (and others') call for abolishing the Electoral College "a Democratic smokescreen." This was the first I heard it as a partisan issue. The Congressman said an Amendment would never pass, because it requires 2/3 of the states to ratify it, and the numerous small heartland states would never agree to cede their power. He recommended we all read the Federalist Papers for the valid rationale (same as I described above) and intent of the Founders.
I think we'll hear that viewpoint more in weeks ahead. I had assumed, incorrectly, that there was a bipartisan consensus that "something" had to be done.