(no subject)

[shapinglight]

To quote Giles, oh dear lord! The BBC news is trying to explain how the American electoral college system works - and I don't understand it any better at all.

:weeps - and wishes it was all over:

Comments

[tx-cronopio.livejournal.com]

Ah, hell, honey, even we don't understand it. It's the dumbest thing ever. BUT IT WILL SOON BE OVER, THANK GOD.

[shapinglight]

Yes. There is that. I can't imagine what it's been like for all of you. It's been bad enough over here.

[mere-ubu.livejournal.com]

My ten year old is home sick today with M. Mere, and when I went home for lunch, she gave me a detailed lecture on the electoral college as well as a map of the U.S. with her predictions for the swing states. *whispers* I don't really understand it, either!

*pets you* One more day, dear.

[shapinglight]

Wow! That's very impressive. I predict your 10 year old will be President herself some day.

[danna7001.livejournal.com]

It means that each state gets a set number of votes (based on population, I think). Then each state votes for the president by casting all its votes according to the majority vote of the individuals in that state. So it's like a separate election in each state. I think my state, Minnesota, has 10 electoral votes. Minnesota is unquestionably favoring Obama. So it's almost like I could skip voting, and it wouldn't even matter. When the majority of individuals in Minnesota vote for Obama, then Minnesota will cast its 10 electoral votes for Obama. The states cast all of their electoral votes according to the majority vote in that state and do not split up their votes, except for one state. This is because of pre-agreed terms.

In 2000, Gore had more individual votes (the popular vote), but Bush won the electoral (state by state) vote and its the electoral vote that elects the president.

Now I may be totally wrong about this because I don't know a lot about government. But that's what I think. It seems totally retarded. That's why the candidates are focusing so hard on certain states and ignoring others. Every day I see the big map on the news of what states are sure things for Obama and what states are sure things for McCain and where the "swing states" are and what the point estimate for electoral votes is. Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida are really important swing states and could make or break the election.

[shapinglight]

Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida are really important swing states and could make or break the election.

I understand that much. Otherwise, my head exploded while reading your first sentence - not because you weren't clear but because I am an idiot.

It just seems ridiculous to me that the popular vote isn't what decides it. Wouldn't that be more fair? Or would it just mean that whoever the population of California wanted would always end up President?

[stormwreath.livejournal.com]

It seems totally retarded

As far as I understand it: the people who designed the US constitution 200+ years ago thought that it should be your State governments that held most of the power, and State elections would therefore be the important ones. The President was only there for boring Federal stuff like signing treaties that would be of no interest to the average citizen.

Therefore, the people vote by State, and the States then get together (in the electoral college) to pick a President. Voting directly for the President would make him seem more important and give him more legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and the Founders actually wanted to avoid that. They wanted to limit the power and influence of the office of President.

They failed.

[danna7001.livejournal.com]

ps - a candidate must get 270 electoral votes to win.

[shapinglight]

Ah. I assume that's not some sort of arbitrary figure?

[cafedemonde.livejournal.com]

What danna7001 said.

There has been attempts at getting it changed to a strict popular vote, but nothing has been done yet. *sighs*

[shapinglight]

Do you think that would be better? I thought so, but then I thought that would probably mean whoever the Californians want to be president would always get elected, which seems a bit unfair on everyone else.

[sockmonkeyhere.livejournal.com]

It was begun way back in 1770-something, when the new U.S. government decided that most of the U.S. population were backwoods pioneers or po' uneducated hicks or other assorted folks who had no way of learning about the candidates and so could not be trusted to make informed, intelligent votes. So they slapped together an electoral college made up of men who had higher education and had read up on the candidates and were thus more trustworthy, in the government's eyes, to choose people for office.

Today it's completely archaic and no longer needed; just a vestigial holdover. It should have been dropped long ago.

[shapinglight]

Today it's completely archaic and no longer needed; just a vestigial holdover. It should have been dropped long ago.

When you put it like that, I see what you mean. I suppose changing it would involve an awful lot of work/paying lawyers etc and nobody wants to get into it?

[kassto.livejournal.com]

Dictatorship would be so much simpler.

I can just imagine what Stalin would have done to electoral colleges...

[shapinglight]

I'm pretty sure he would've found a way to make them work for him - very cunning, after all.

[deird1]

It's rather insane, isn't it?

Australian voting is much simpler.

[shapinglight]

Ours is too. First past the post, and that's that.

[pfeifferpack.livejournal.com]

Most US citizens don't understand either (some aren't even aware that the popular vote doesn't elect the President at all!). Once upon a time the US Senate voted for the President and the citizens had no say at all. Each election there is a call for change but it has yet to happen. At least once in history the popular vote winner did not win in the electoral college. They are SUPPOSED to vote based on the people in the state that they represent but are not bound to do so and at least once did not. It's crazy!

Kathleen

[shapinglight]

(some aren't even aware that the popular vote doesn't elect the President at all!

Really? Mind you, I'm not surprised. If you didn't know about the electoral college system, it's not an idea you'd ever think of.

They are SUPPOSED to vote based on the people in the state that they represent but are not bound to do so and at least once did not.

Eeek! Really? It gets weirder and weirder.

[kitmarlowescot2.livejournal.com]

If it makes you feel any better I don't understand British goverment either.
How many parties are their ?
Acourse the electoral college can confuse me too. I am in one of those swing state, Virginia, we have 13 votes. So both candidates have been visiting here alot.
Acourse having the second oldest black college in the US right here also means we see Obama a lot.

[kitmarlowescot2.livejournal.com]

And unfortunately Jesse Jackson as well.
Here is the Electoral College link on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Also has their ever been anyone who has been prime minister like for just a day, because couldn't y'all vote one in, and then the next day decide to boot him or her out ?

[rahirah]

That's OK. No one here understands it either.

[shapinglight]

:is relieved:

I thought it was just me.

[tripleransom.livejournal.com]

When I was in Civics class in 5th grade, I thought I understood the Electoral College. It didn't make any sense to me then and still doesn't.

[shapinglight]

It didn't make any sense to me then and still doesn't.

Ah. Well, after what Danna and Sockmonkey say above, I can quite see why.

It's pretty incomprehensible.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair, how Britain chooses a Prime Minister completely confuses me. :)

Truthfully, the Electoral College isn't all that mysterious. It's the sum of the number of senators a state has and the number of representatives. It was a compromise the Founding Fathers came up with such that urban areas couldn't dominate rural ones, leaving candidates to only focus on urban ares. Since every state has two Senators, every state starts with a base of 2 electoral votes, no matter what the state's size. On the other hand, the number of Representatives a state has is based on the population the state had during the last census (thereby taking population into account.) Win a state, win it's electoral votes. Think of it as 50 state elections rather than one big one. Does that make any more sense?

[shapinglight]

Well, to be fair, how Britain chooses a Prime Minister completely confuses me. :)

Really? What is it that's confusing?

Also, yes. Your explanation does make sense. Thank you. I thought that the reasoning behind it had to be something to do with fair play for the less populated states.

[swsa.livejournal.com]

The upside to the Electoral College is supposed to be that it gives states that would normally have very little say some voice in the election. If it was a strict popular vote, candidates would park themselves in NY and California and forget the rest of the country. But since it only takes 270 electoral votes to win, something like my state's 10 electoral votes suddenly has value.

Basically how it works: Each state's number of votes is the number of their senators + their representatives. Every state has 2 Senators. Their number of reps is based on the population of their state. So states like NY have a larger number of reps than ones like Iowa or Montanta. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in each state wins ALL the electoral votes. Whoever gets to 270 wins.

[shapinglight]

But since it only takes 270 electoral votes to win, something like my state's 10 electoral votes suddenly has value.

Ah yes. It does all make better sense now, though it still seems awfully complicated. Mind you, America is such a big, diverse place, it was never going to be simple.

[antennapedia.livejournal.com]

American voters vote for electors, who in turn vote for President/VP pairs. Most states have a rule that says their electors must vote for the winner of the popular vote in the state. Win the state, win all its electoral votes.

Electors: Each state gets as many as it has senators + reps, and the District of Columbia gets as many as the smallest state (3). 538 total.

The original 1787 intention was for people to vote for electors who'd represent their interests, who'd then travel the great distance to the capital, meet the candidates, and pick one. The runner-up would be VP. An almost parliamentary setup, really. However, this system was gamed almost immediately, and people began voting for sworn, aka loyal, aka already committed to a candidate, electors, immediately giving the US the two-party system it had hoped to avoid. Also, there were problems with voting ties. The 12th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution) changed everything around in an attempt to fix the problem.

The trick where some (most) states dedicate all their electors to the winner of the popular vote is an attempt to leverage their votes to make themselves more powerful.

In other words, what they said.

[shapinglight]

Thank you. I feel much enlightened. Just goes to show that man on the BBC last night was overly complicating things.

Hope you're feeling a little better, btw?

[ex_peasant441]

Oh, I thought I understood it and it was pretty simple. Bother, I must be wrong.

[shapinglight]

You probably do understand it. It's just me being stupid.

ETA: Also, after reading everyone's explanations, I almost feel I understand it too.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

An American on LJ once tried to explain to me how it was much more democratic than the one man one vote system, where the winner is the one with the most votes.

She said that if everyone's votes counted equally then, as 'more people live in cities', and 'city people are democrats' the democrats would win most often, and 'this is unfair on people who live in the country, who are all republicans and should not be dictated to by the reds who live in cities'.....

[shapinglight]

I see what she meant up to a point, but then again, isn't democracy rule by the majority?