How the Electoral College Works, Or: Why Your Vote Doesn't Matter

[Green Arrow]

First video explains the electoral college:


http://youtu.be/OUS9mM8Xbbw

Second video explains why it sucks and our votes really don't matter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

I will await intelligent responses and laugh at ludicrously ignorant ones.

[The Sage of Main Street]

First video explains the electoral college:


http://youtu.be/OUS9mM8Xbbw

Second video explains why it sucks and our votes really don't matter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

I will await intelligent responses and laugh at ludicrously ignorant ones. This concentration on the less populous states having an unfair representation is a red herring. The real problem is Winner Take All. So states should be required to split their votes according to the percentage for each candidate. In the present system, many votes don't count because the states are usually hopelessly locked by one candidate. I believe in the rule of the majority, but this is a national election and not a state one, so your representation in the federal government depends too much on how much you count for within your state.

[Private Pickle]

Not sure what we are discussing...

[Green Arrow]

Not sure what we are discussing...

The realities of the electoral college and (meaningless) voting.

[Private Pickle]

The realities of the electoral college and (meaningless) voting.

So States can split their vote and even go against the popular vote...it just never happens...

[Green Arrow]

So States can split their vote and even go against the popular vote...it just never happens...

Except it does actually happen, which was mentioned in the video.

Well, except states splitting their vote. States can't split their vote because it is winner-take-all. Which is another problem.

[Peter1469]

Without the electoral college, several hard left dominated urban centers could win any presidential election.

[Mainecoons]

They do anyway. The Electoral College was intended as part of republican government to prevent rule by the rabble. I don't think they anticipated that the dead would rise up and vote Democrat but in any case it doesn't work.

So we get a Barack Obama.

[sachem]

Not sure what we are discussing...Neither are they.

[Private Pickle]

Except it does actually happen, which was mentioned in the video.

Well, except states splitting their vote. States can't split their vote because it is winner-take-all. Which is another problem.

Depends on the State. Maine and Nebraska only give 2 electors to the popular vote and split the rest... I think they are the only two at this point but that's up to each individual State.

[Peter1469]

End the winner take all thing.

[Green Arrow]

Without the electoral college, several hard left dominated urban centers could win any presidential election.

Sure, but their vote wouldn't count any more or less than a hard right dominated rural area. Everyone's vote would mean the exact same and carry the same weight.

[Peter1469]

Their argument about the major cities not adding to enough people forgets the earlier argument that all you need is 51% of the vote in a state. So NYC can go a long way towards wining NY.

[Peter1469]

Sure, but their vote wouldn't count any more or less than a hard right dominated rural area. Everyone's vote would mean the exact same and carry the same weight.

It doesn't much matter with winner take all if you have a large urban center and large welfare population.

[Green Arrow]

Their argument about the major cities not adding to enough people forgets the earlier argument that all you need is 51% of the vote in a state. So NYC can go a long way towards wining NY.

Under the electoral college system, yes, but under a popular vote system, there is no "winning NY" or any other state.

[Private Pickle]

End the winner take all thing.

Thats the State's call.

[Peter1469]

Under the electoral college system, yes, but under a popular vote system, there is no "winning NY" or any other state.

OK, I was thinking it was still state by state.

[Green Arrow]

OK, I was thinking it was still state by state.

Nope, under a popular vote system, all that matters is how many votes you got. Votes aren't counted by states, cities, counties, House districts, etc. Just counted by who voted for who.

[Peter1469]

On that basis, then you are correct.

I just didn't take the leap to taking the states totally out of the equation. The states have been pushed out of power so much that I am not sure what I think of this.
Nope, under a popular vote system, all that matters is how many votes you got. Votes aren't counted by states, cities, counties, House districts, etc. Just counted by who voted for who.

[Green Arrow]

On that basis, then you are correct.

I just didn't take the leap to taking the states totally out of the equation. The states have been pushed out of power so much that I am not sure what I think of this.

If we gave states the Senate back, states would have their representation. Really, I don't particularly care for the idea of the President being elected at all, but if we're going to elect the President, I'd prefer to do it by popular vote.

[The Sage of Main Street]

So States can split their vote and even go against the popular vote...it just never happens... Why should an individual state voluntarily decrease its power? It has to be mandatory for all states to do that. The fact that people don't understand this simple fact shows that the rulers purposely dumb us down.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Thats the State's call. You've been tricked if you fall for that enforced reasoning. Ragged individualism is the real result of those who go it alone.

[birddog]

Without the EC, more Santa Claus techniques would be used especially by the Ds. Representation would not be as fair. States rights would be decreased.

We simply need fair elections which can be improved by proper Voter ID. The ones who support voter fraud are the ones mostly opposed to Voter ID.

[toto]

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.


During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

[toto]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

[toto]

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE -74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

[toto]

Why should an individual state voluntarily decrease its power? It has to be mandatory for all states to do that. The fact that people don't understand this simple fact shows that the rulers purposely dumb us down.

Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.

The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.

& &

If a current battleground state, like Colorado, were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

"Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, the congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ."
- FairVote

[toto]

Without the electoral college, several hard left dominated urban centers could win any presidential election.

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't poll, organize, buy ads, and visit just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states or (gerrymandered) districts would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

[Rebel Son]

I've argued this until I've been blue in the face, states like Cali. always go for a progressive and they carry alot of ec votes. A popular vote by person is the only way to go because ie, your vote in some states doesn't make a fart in a wind storm who wins.

[Captain Obvious]

I've asked this loaded question here a couple times and generally got a canned, rhetorical "urban democrats" answer, which I think is bullshit.

Our "democracy" was well designed to keep power and control away from commoners and moreso in the hands of landowners. Our forefathers were wealthy landowners and they sure as hell weren't shitting on their dinner plate.

There was a pretty good documentary on Alternative Radio (yeah, a progressive bedshitting program, I know), this professor talked in depth about this and how common people, voters, locals have virtually no power and authority. I wish I could link it here but I think it has to be purchased.

[Green Arrow]

I've asked this loaded question here a couple times and generally got a canned, rhetorical "urban democrats" answer, which I think is bullshit.

Our "democracy" was well designed to keep power and control away from commoners and moreso in the hands of landowners. Our forefathers were wealthy landowners and they sure as hell weren't shitting on their dinner plate.

There was a pretty good documentary on Alternative Radio (yeah, a progressive bedshitting program, I know), this professor talked in depth about this and how common people, voters, locals have virtually no power and authority. I wish I could link it here but I think it has to be purchased.

Where's the question?

[Captain Obvious]

Where's the question?

Sorry, I've asked what the purpose of the electoral college is.

[Green Arrow]

Sorry, I've asked what the purpose of the electoral college is.

Ah. Right. Well, I agree with your post.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I've asked this loaded question here a couple times and generally got a canned, rhetorical "urban democrats" answer, which I think is bullshit.

Our "democracy" was well designed to keep power and control away from commoners and moreso in the hands of landowners. Our forefathers were wealthy landowners and they sure as hell weren't shitting on their dinner plate.

There was a pretty good documentary on Alternative Radio (yeah, a progressive bedshitting program, I know), this professor talked in depth about this and how common people, voters, locals have virtually no power and authority. I wish I could link it here but I think it has to be purchased. The Constitutionazis push the supreme power of their sacred document in order to get people used to being under the supreme power of their employers. We don't have to accept their power play of glorifying the Constitution and its framers just because they say so. They are political bullies who smother our freedoms with this 18th Century anti-democratic manifesto.

They push this secular Bible for the same reason ruling classes support the myth of an infallible and just God, really in order to soften their subjects up to accept that kind of submission in the economy, in law, and in war. The Sacred Cow Constitution is just an extension of the way tyrants have always used religion. People don't actually believe what they can't see, so they transfer that slavish religious attitude to a self-declared boss on earth.

[toto]

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.