Thursday, October 9, 2008

The Electoral College Primer: How it Works

In my many ill-advised political conversations with people sitting around while sharing beers and such, it occurs to me that most Americans don't really understand how our highest leaders are actually elected. While most recognize the term, "Electoral College," perhaps only a small percentage know what it is or how it works (and even fewer know why the system was created). If you have a good understanding of the electoral system, feel free to skip this post; this post is designed to help folks (who either aren't aware, or who have forgotten how the process works) brush up on their knowledge of how we actually pick our president and vice president. Butt and ReButt debates are the wrong place to engage in complex educational essays, but a little bit of explanation of the system seems in order. Toward that end, I will explain how we vote for our leaders, but for a history of the Electoral College system and it's pros and cons, you'll need to read Dano's and Reed's debate.

For those of you who are legal and/or political scholars, simplicity and clarity dictate that the explanation that follows may be oversimplified and even slightly incorrect (though, not substantively). Please don't make unimportant correction comments to this post.

After reading this entry, it is hoped that some participants can then better enjoy and understand our debate posts for this week, "should we scrap the Electoral College system in favor of one that relies strictly on the popular vote?"

How We Vote for President and Vice President

When we vote for the president and vice president of the U.S., we are not actually voting for the candidates; we are voting for the group of people appointed within our respective states to represent us in the national election. These people, selected by varied methods from state to state, are collectively known as "electors," and, taken together, are known as the "Electoral College" (though this term is not found in the Constitution). Each state has as many electors as they have representatives and senators in the U.S. Congress. All told, there are 538 members of the Electoral College (equal to the 535 members of Congress plus three for the District of Columbia).

In many states, the electors are required by state law to vote according to the outcome of the popular vote within the state. In other words, if the majority of the popular vote favors the Republican candidate, the electors would be required to cast all of the state's electoral votes for the Republican candidate. In some other states, this loyalty to the public is not required, but history shows that there have been very few instances of "faithless electors," as those who vote contrary to the loyalty promise are known. Two states, Nebraska and Maine, stand alone in their choice to select electors largely by Congressional districts, such that the respective Democratic and Republican candidates can both gain a portion of the electoral votes in these two states.

So, the long and short of it is that on election day, each state tallies up the popular votes within the state and, ideally, the state's electors agree to cast the state's votes according to the public majority. Within Florida, for example, if the Democratic candidate gets 51% of the popular vote of Floridians, the state's electors would certify that Florida voted for the Democratic candidate. Each state, in turn, sends their state's electoral vote tallies to the U.S. Congress, which officially counts them in December of each election year, and certifies the winners. Winners must have gotten a simple majority of the total collective electoral votes -- 270 electoral votes out of the total of 538. In the unlikely case of an electoral vote tie, complex provisions require that Congress make the final decision.

Hope that helps. On to the debate posts, now!

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Halleluiah Dano is back!! So good to see you're back "on-line", Dano.

As to the "primer", definitely a great preface to the debates.

My initial knee-jerk reaction to the question of whether we should continue to have an electoral college, is No. The votes should be tallied up and submitted to Congress as is, no alterations.

Dano said...

Thanks for staying in touch, Deb! We appreciate your input, obviously.

I understand your initial reaction is just that. The posts are now up, and they will certainly generate some discussion. Please read them and see if your opinion is at all affected.

Anonymous said...

Never left a message before but here it is.

The owners of this website told me not to believe what I read on the internet. Then turned right around and told me that I am to believe that birth certificate on Barrak Obama's website is legitimate..........

How Funny is that? Don't believe what you read on the internet but believe anything Barrak Obama says or posts on his website.

Are these guys serious? He's a politician......by definitin he's a liar.

This all because another Democrat is suing Barrak trying to make him prove he's a true citizen. Barrak's only proof is an alleged copy of his birth certificate on his website.......yeah.....that's authenic....LOL.

A judge in Pennsylviania may just make him produce the actual document which to date he actually hasn't done......even to the DNC.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dano said...

Anonymous, the admonition was "don't believe EVERYTHING you read on the Internet.We cite websites all the time, but let readers know when they are partisan or have dubious credibility. The Obama birth certificate rumor has already been debunked more than once. This, regarding the birth certificate, was in story on AOL's Politico site today:

"The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document. On Friday, officials in Hawaii said they had personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate. Judges in Washington state, Ohio and Pennsylvania have dismissed lawsuits [challenging Obama's citizenship]."

These actions have been widely reported on TV news, in newspapers, and on the Internet. As I've asked you before, don't you think if Obama were NOT a natural-born U.S. citizen the Election Commission (or whomever you sign up with to run for office) would not have let him run? Don't you think McCain himself would have instituted legal action to prevent him from running for president? Get real. If you just hate Obama because he's a Democrat, or he's inexperienced, or he's African American, or he's too liberal, then say so. The birth certificate thing is over.

Anonymous said...

I just love censorship. Sure you have your rules but censorship of any form is unamerican.

Found this site by accident, saw you deleted a post and by the next reply I assume it wasn't volgur. The poster probably violated some rule but it's hard to know since I can't read the post.

It's also hard to know what the reply was really about as well.

The main reason I replied was that the next poster said factcheck.org was non-partisan. I was ROFL at that one. Factcheck dot org is one of the most biased websites on the internet.

Snopes is getting that way too. I have recently disproved 3 of their claims of "fact" They were non-political if that matters.

It's just that these two websites which started out as "research" sites to prove real facts have become themselves sites on the internet to avoid. The adage don't believe what you read on the internet definintely applies to Snopes and FactCheck