US Electoral College - 'Splain, please ...

PJ Hardtack · October 24, 2012, 08:06:36 PM

For the benefit of the Canucks on the forum, will someone please 'splain the Electoral College that ultimately selects the US President.

We are generally well informed on US politics, but your system differs from ours when it comes to selecting the top gun. With your election in the offing, curious minds want to know .....

GunClick Rick · October 24, 2012, 08:59:08 PM

You first

We don't vote in Ca. well we do,but it don't make a dang cuase there's a bunch of electric guys that represent us..I think,but they could be wrong or facimile thereof

Sort of like one grease bucket fer 4 wheels

Bugscuffle · October 24, 2012, 09:49:38 PM

We elect most of our government leaders by popular vote. The exception is the election of the President and Vice President. The Electoral College is the body that actually elects then President and Vice-President of the U.S. Each member of the Electoral College has one vote. There are 538 votes in the Electoral College. A majority of 270 electoral votes are required to elect a President/Vice-President. Each state and the has the number of electoral votes equal to the number of Representatives in Congress plus one for each Senator. The District of Columbia had three electoral votes. The members of the Electoral College are required by law to vote for the candidate that the majority of the people in their state or the District of Columbia have voted for. A much better and more complete explanation can be found here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Shotgun Franklin · October 24, 2012, 09:50:15 PM

This form of voting was conceived of before rapid communications and transportation were invented. The reality was that trying to get all the votes to where they could be counted just wouldn't workout. So, the Framers decided that voters in a State would select Electors to meet and select the winning Candidate. Electors are more or less bound to vote for the guy they represented through the first ballot. If no one wins the first ballot then the Electors can wheel and deal hoping to get their best choice in office. There have been a couple of deadlocked ties, in which case the Senate picks the winner, new President. It was not a bad system 200 years ago but can cause real bad feelings. Al Gore still claims, wrongly, that he won the popular vote. Bush won the Electoral Vote regardless.

Trailrider · October 24, 2012, 10:27:01 PM

Shotgun Franklin has it right except if no candidate gets the 270 electoral votes required. In that case, it goes to the House of Representatives, where each state has one vote. If no majority can be reached in the House (lower house) then the Senate gets to vote. It is possible that a candidate (President and Vice-President run together unless it goes to the Senate...something that is unlikely), can win the popluar vote, but lose the electoral vote in the general election. It is also not true that the electors are bound by law to vote for their candidate. It has happened that electors switched, but it is rare, and would probably cause a real hassle in the courts.

It is too bad that this election depends on the "swing" states, to the extent that Ohio or Florida could decide the election by electoral vote, leaving the popular majority screwed! There have been a number of attempts to get rid of the Electoral College, but to do so would require an ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that is a VERY, VERY difficult thing to accomplish...iin general, rightly so. Congress would have to pass such a bill in BOTH houses, which ain't likely right now...maybe ever...and then it would require 3/4 of the states to ratify, and you wind up with the same political opposition that goes on all the time! So we are pretty much stuck with the thing!

GunClick Rick · October 24, 2012, 10:51:09 PM

Quote from: Shotgun Franklin on October 24, 2012, 09:50:15 PM
This form of voting was conceived of before rapid communications and transportation were invented. The reality was that trying to get all the votes to where they could be counted just wouldn't workout. So, the Framers decided that voters in a State would select Electors to meet and select the winning Candidate. Electors are more or less bound to vote for the guy they represented through the first ballot. If no one wins the first ballot then the Electors can wheel and deal hoping to get their best choice in office. There have been a couple of deadlocked ties, in which case the Senate picks the winner, new President. It was not a bad system 200 years ago but can cause real bad feelings. Al Gore still claims, wrongly, that he won the popular vote. Bush won the Electoral Vote regardless.

Well i have a map from the senate and it is listed as Al Gore President

GunClick Rick · October 24, 2012, 10:53:27 PM

I hope we cleared that up for ya...Death,Taxes, and the electorate

Besides i also have a coin with a donkey on one side and an elephant on the other~~~ O~~ flip^ I'll let ya know who won..

wildman1 · October 25, 2012, 05:31:03 AM

Quote from: GunClick Rick on October 24, 2012, 10:53:27 PM
I hope we cleared that up for ya...Death,Taxes, and the electorate Besides i also have a coin with a donkey on one side and an elephant on the other~~~ O~~ flip^ I'll let ya know who won..

Whats the Biblical term fer donkey? WM

GunClick Rick · October 25, 2012, 10:16:14 AM

Burro,everybody knows that

PJ Hardtack · October 25, 2012, 11:05:25 AM

Sheesh ... I'm almost sorry I asked .... So, who says who gets to be a member of the Electoral College and have a vote?

Our system is just as chaotic and outdated. We use the 'first past the post' system (provincially as well as federally) whereby whatever party gets 40% of the popular vote gets to form a majority government!!!! That means 60% have no elected representation as they voted for the wrong party. This system dates from 1867 and needs to be changed.

We are pushing for some form of proportional representation and it will come, but at the provincial level first. We've had two referenda on adoption of 'rep by pop' and it hasn't passed yet.

GunClick Rick · October 25, 2012, 12:20:07 PM

That'll learn ya

Shotgun Franklin · October 25, 2012, 12:37:40 PM

There have been 'corrections' over the years. Early on the winner of the Presidential race became President, the guy who came in second became Vice-President. Kinda made for strained relations in DC.

FriscoCounty · October 25, 2012, 12:58:12 PM

A couple of corrections to the previous posts. Neither the Constitution or Federal law restricts who an elector votes for. Each state makes that decision - whether it is the conscience of the elector, allocated by state vote, allocated by congressional district, winner take all, or any other system a state may come up with. The Electoral College votes once, after that it is turned over to the Congress.

The Electors are chosen by the State, using whatever method they choose. There are some advantages to the Electoral College, even today. Without it the small states would be ignored, drowned out by the large metropolitan areas. In the 2004 Election voting Democrats outnumbered Republicans in New City by 1.24 million. That was more than the number of people who voted Republican in DC, Vermont, Wyoming, RI, Delaware, Alaska, Hawaii, and North Dakota combined.

Lastly, if the Electoral College fails to elect a President and the vote goes to the Congress, the House gets first crack at the President and the Senate selects the Vice-President. They free to select which ever candidate they choose of the top Electoral College vote getters. If the House can not elect a President in time, then the Vice President serves as President until they do.

PJ Hardtack · October 25, 2012, 01:17:09 PM

OK - I've got a better grasp of how your system works now. Despite the anomalies, it does a better job of 'rep by pop' than does ours.

Back when there was a plethora of parties, our system had some validity when a party could garner 40% of the votes. Now it's down to two major (Canadian Progressive-Conservative and Liberals) and two fringe parties - the Greens and the Separatiste Bloc Quebecois. If you are wondering just what in hell a Progressive-Conservative is, so are we.

We once had the insanity of having a sworn Separatiste as the head of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition - only in Canada, you say ....?
People get the army, police and government they derserve or are willing to pay for. Like Churchill said -

"Democracy is the worst way possible of governing ourselves - except for all the others."

"We have met the enemy, and they is us." Pogo

Buffalo Creek Law Dog · October 25, 2012, 08:51:03 PM

Quote from: PJ Hardtack on October 25, 2012, 01:17:09 PM
OK - I've got a better grasp of how your system works now. Despite the anomalies, it does a better job of 'rep by pop' than does ours.

Back when there was a plethora of parties, our system had some validity when a party could garner 40% of the votes. Now it's down to two major (Canadian Progressive-Conservative and Liberals) and two fringe parties - the Greens and the Separatiste Bloc Quebecois. If you are wondering just what in hell a Progressive-Conservative is, so are we.

We once had the insanity of having a sworn Separatiste as the head of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition - only in Canada, you say ....?
People get the army, police and government they derserve or are willing to pay for. Like Churchill said -

"Democracy is the worst way possible of governing ourselves - except for all the others."

"We have met the enemy, and they is us." Pogo

PJ, just a note, there is no longer a Progressive Conservative Party.....It is just the Conservative Party of Canada. The word "progrssive" was dropped when they almalgamated with the Reform Party.

Trailrider · October 25, 2012, 11:57:22 PM

Pray!

PJ Hardtack · October 26, 2012, 10:24:50 AM

BCLD - thanks for the correction.

As for praying re: our politcians and politics in general, I have politically inactive Christian friends who tell me that nations get the leadership they deserve - good or bad, to prosper or to chastise them.

That is a little too Biblically fundamental for me and I regard this as excuse for not being politically active and informed. They need to read up on the activity of the Christian church in Nazi Germany that was very active in the plot to depose Hitler.
I don't mean the puppet Christian leaders that supported Hitler, I mean the lesser known activists like Bonhoeffer who was hanged for his efforts.

You take part or get taken apart. It is a fight in which there are no neutrals.

Trailrider · October 26, 2012, 04:20:35 PM

Well, since my wife and I already voted (vote by mail in our county, allows either mailing it in or dropping the ballots off at designated offices that have ballot boxes), that's about all we can do.