explain this electoral college thing to me

TearsOfRage

New member
Can someone explain (or give a link to a site that explains) how the electoral college works? Has there ever been an election where the popular vote would have elected one candidate, but the electortal college elected the other guy? Has anyone ever seriously suggested changing this system?
 
The system began a long time ago when communications were slow at best . A state would decide on a few delegates to represent them in Wash. so that an election could take place in "real time" . The number of delegates was predacated on the population therby determining the number of "electorial votes."
So it is possible to lose a state like Kalifornia by 1 vote and lose 34 electorial votes . You may win Rhode Island by a landslide but get only a couple . That is how the electorial vote can go one way but the majority voted for the other guy .
Hope this helps .

------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA GOA
 
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a4.html#Q64

Quoted from the above link:

A. The electoral process, at least for presidential elections, is spelled out in the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment.

Basically, each state has a number of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives they have in Congress (at least 3 per state).

On election day, the people of each state cast their ballot for the president and vice president. But what they are really doing is voting for a slate of electors pledged to those candidates. The fact that the people vote at all is a matter of tradition and/or state law rather than constitutional law. The electors in a state may be appointed any way a state sees fit. I don't think there is a single state that does not used popular ballot for that choosing, but they don't have to.

Once the votes have been counted, that candidate with the most votes gets all of the electors in that state. Electors may not be members of Congress or be in any other government position. The electors in the state meet and vote for the President and for the Vice President in separate ballots. Though the assumption is that the electors will vote for the chosen of their party, there is no constitutional rule that says that (in other words, a Clinton elector could have voted for Bush). Some states (Vermont, for example) have rules stipulating that electors will vote for the candidates of their party. The votes are transmitted to the Senate.

In the Senate, the votes are counted in the presence of the whole congress, and the President is the one with the majority of votes. If there is no majority, the top three candidates are voted upon by the assembled congress. Each state is given one vote, and the President is chosen by them; if no majority is found, votes continue. If no President has been chosen by the March 4th, the Vice President, who is chosen in a similar fashion, will be acting President.
 
In the election of 1888, Grover Cleveland, the incumbent, won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison. Harrison, a Republican, served four years; Cleveland re-gained the presidency in the election of 1892. The election of 1888 is the last time that the winner of the popular vote lost the election. Of course, it is possible that it could happen again.

I am of the opinion that when it happens again (winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote) this provision of the constitution will be changed quickly to make all future presidents elected by popular vote.

------------------
We have never been modern.
 
EricM: Let me add that the states aren't required to follow a winner takes all system, either; They ARE allowed to use proportional representation.

I might also point out that the 24th amendment assumes that electors will be elected by popular vote; "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in primary or other election, for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress..." Might be a bit of a legal fight if a state decided to appoint electors instead, and I wouldn't bet good money on the appointment scheme winning a court battle.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
TearsOfRage,

In the election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won the majority of the popular vote AND the majority of the Electoral College (EC). However, Jackson did not win the minimum required number of EC votes and the election went to the Congress who choose John Q. Adams as President.

In the election of 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won 48 percent of the popular vote versus Samual J. Tilden's 51 percent. Hayes had 185 EC votes to Tilden's 184 and the Presidency was won by Hayes.

As Trevor pointed out, the 1888 election was also given to the candidate with the lesser of the popular vote.
 
Thanks.

While I do understand why this was originally done, it also seems like a great way to keep any third party or independent candidates out of the white house.

The states choose their governors & congressmen by direct elction, right? Which explains why there ARE some third party people in those positions.
 
"The states choose their governors & congressmen by direct elction, right? Which explains why there ARE some third party people in those positions."

The other reason for both the electoral college and the original election of Senators by States was to recognized the sovereingty of the States and at base, the existance of the States. Otherwise, we would have a Union of Territories.

Rick
 
Back
Top