Question on the electoral college system?

[waylon]

How does it work? How can a candidate win the popular vote but not the electoral? Examples on the math would be appreciated.

[NWHarkness]

1. Simplest way to understand:

Maryland and Arizona each have 10 electoral votes (Had, anyway, it might have changed after 2000 census).

Let's say the Democratic candidate carries Maryland by 500,000 votes. He gets Maryland's 10 electoral votes.

Meanwhile, in Arizona, the race is tighter. The same number of votes are cast, more or less, as in Maryland, but the Republican carries the state by only 50,000 votes.

Between the 2 states, the popular vote shows an advantage of 450,000 more votes for the Democrat, but the electoral votes are awarded 10 for the Dem, 10 for the Rep.

Expand that logic out to all 50 states, and you see how someone can win the popular, but lose the electoral vote.

[izzie]

5. It is winner take all but in 2 states.

Maine is one and I do not recall the other. On Maine we had to wait and see if Gore would carry the north of the state.We only have 4 votes.

[youngred]

7. Nebraska I think

but don't quote me on that

[youngred]

2. Very simple

Each state is allotted electoral votes equaling their number of Representatives in congress (plus DC gets 3) making the total 538 votes. To get all a state's votes on merely needs 50% +1 vote. So say there are two states with a relatively equal population. They would have the same number of electors. Winning 99% in state A plus 49% in state B yields a clear popular vote advantage however the electoral votes would be split evenly. Normally it works that the winner of the popular vote wins enough electoral votes that it doesn't matter. However, in the US we DO NOT elect our president. We vote for electors who then vote for the President. However, in most states the electors are NOT bound to vote for the candidate that the people select. Though it has rarely happened (as it is political suicide to vote against your party's nominee) electors do not always vote for whom they are supposed to.

A positive example would be the election of Madison who ran unopposed and so theoretically should have gotten all the electoral votes. However, to preserve George Washington as the only unanimously elected President one elector voted against him. On the negative side Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams after having gained more popular AND electoral college votes (it was a 4 way race which caused the decision to be thrown to the house where corrupt bargaining threw the nod to Adams). As well as George W. Bush.

[waylon]

8. Thanks, but further question

You said...Winning 99% in state A plus 49% in state B yields a clear popular vote advantage however the electoral votes would be split evenly.

If it takes 50% +1 vote, how would state B get those electoral votes? Wouldnt they go to the other candidate with 51%?

[youngred]

13. sorry, unclear

yes that is what I meant. State B would go to the second candidate splitting the electoral vote evenly

[dakota_democrat]

3. Here's how it works...

This isn't going to use exact numbers, but it should explain it a little bit:

Let's say California has 10,000,000 people that vote: 8 million for the democrat's candidate, 2 million for the republican.

The democrat wins, gets the 54 electoral votes.

Let's say New York (about 5 million) and Florida (about 4 million) vote for the republican candidate. New York splits 3 million/2 million and Florida splits 2.5 million/1.5 million.

The republican gets 25 electoral votes (Florida) + 33 electoral votes (New York) = 58 electoral votes.

Electoral votes may be won by the republican 58-54, but the popular votes is won by the democrat 11.5 million-7.5 million.

Obviously these numbers aren't exact (and in some cases not particularily realistic) but this is a basic showing of how it can happen. It also shows that some people's votes count for more than others, therefore making the electoral system unconstitutional in my eyes.

James

[never cry wolf]

4. It goes by state

Each state gets one electoral vote for each senator and congressman and whichever prez candidate wins that state wins all of that state's electoral votes.

Here were the totals from 2000:

PRESIDENT EV States Won Vote % Votes
BUSH 271 30 48% 50,456,169
GORE 266 21 48% 50,996,116

Bush won more states but they were for the most part the lower populated western and southern states which have a greater represenataion in the electoral college.

For example, California has 55 electoral votes and a population of 34,292,871, one electoral vote for every 623,507 californians.

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and a population of 484,833 for one electoral vote for every 161,611 wyomingians (?)

In addition, say there were just two states, one with one more electoral vote that the other and a slightly higher population. The larger state could go 51%-49% for candidate A while the lesser state could go 80%-20% for candidate B. Overall candidate B would have more popular votes but candidate A won more electoral votes.

The system sucks for someone like me from a higher population state, IMHO! (Actually for all dems since the higher pop states tend towards dems.)

[BillZBubb]

6. How the electoral college works

Each state has a number of electors determined by it's population at the last census. In effect, there is one elector per house district plus 2 for the senators.

Populous states have a lot of electors, small states fewer. For instance, in 2000, California had 54 electors and Wyoming 3.

When you vote for a presidential candidate in your state, you are really voting for a slate of electors pledged to that candidate. If your candidate wins the state, his electors vote in the electoral college. All other electors for other candidates are out.

Therefore, electors in each state vote in a block--it's all or nothing. So, if a candidate wins California by just 1 vote, he still gets all 54 electors. His opponent gets none.

Now suppose a candidate won every little state by huge margins but lost all the big states by just a few votes. That would mean the candidate with less popular votes would win the electoral college just by squeaking out wins in the big states.

Bush* did just the opposite. He won enough little states and a few big ones to pull out a win in the electoral college, even though Gore got big wins in some populous states. Gore got the popular majority, Bush got the electoral college, we got screwed.

[Cicero]

10. Not every state is winner-take-all, of course...

Maine and Nebraska elect their electors on a congressional district basis, with the 2 remaining electors being state-wide. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring the states to go winner-take-all. I'd like to see states go one step further and start having proportional allocation...

I do NOT advocate eliminating the electoral college, but I do think it could use some updating.

Later,

[eyesroll]

9. Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral

Each state has a different number of electoral votes, corresponding to the number of Representatives and Senators they have. So, a state like Vermont or Wyoming will have 3 electoral votes; Wisconsin has 10; California has 54 (I think). DC gets 3 as well.

A couple of smaller states award electoral votes proportionally, but most are winner-take-all. Let's use California. They've got a population of 34 million. Let's assume 15 million people vote in 2004. (Let's assume a Gore-Bush rematch, so we don't tread on GD:2004 territory.)

If 7.51 million vote for Gore and 7.49 million vote for Bush, Gore gets 54 electoral votes.

If 14.5 million vote for Gore, and 500,000 for Bush, Gore gets 54 electoral votes.

In other words, the net effect of Gore winning the popular vote in California is the same -- 54 electoral votes -- whether it was a squeaker or a landslide.

Theoretically, Gore could win the popular vote nationwide by that landslide 14 million margin, but still lose the electoral college handily, if the rest are very close (or cancel each other out -- a landslide for Bush in Texas cancelling out a landslide for Gore in New York).

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by about half a million.

[kenny blankenship]

12. and the margin of victory could be considered even higher

"Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by about half a million."

And the states that voted for him versus the states that voted for Bush outnumber the Bush states' population-wise by about 5 million.

[kenny blankenship]

11. states get electors based on their reps and senators

representatives are more or less evenly apportioned according to population. But each state has two senators whether they have 30,000,000 people or just 600,000.

If states received electors only for their representatives then the EC vote would mirror the popular vote outcome.

However since they also receive electors for their senators, that means sparsely populated states have a kind of "booster seat". Their EC vote is disproportionately large relative to their population. If the small population states then vote as a bloc, going strongly for one party --and they do this voting for the Republicans-- they can negate the votes of millions of people in more populated states.

And that is where babies come from.

[0007]

14. An argument that I never have been able to understand is

that the reason for not doing away with the electoral system is that it wouldn't be fair for states that are sparely populated. Because candidates would only concentrate on the most populated areas. Then why would a candidate want to spend much time in Wyoming with only 3 electoral votes when California has 56?

In my way of thinking the popular vote would be the most ideal. What am I missing?

[wuushew]

15. If Bush won in 2004 by 282 to 256 using just the 41 smallest states

using the 2000 census data the population of the 41 smallest states and D.C. equals 137,561,219. That means the remaining 10 large states have a population of 143,860,687.

Now I am going to make some rather large assumptions here, but lets for the sake of argument assume everyone that is counted in the census is an eligable voter and that the vote is split in every state 50-50 except the one republican who tips the scales.

The theortical maximum disparity would be 68,780,609 votes for Bush to 71,930,343 for Dennis Kucinich. Bush despite losing the popular vote by over three million votes would still win the electoral college.

(On edit, slight math mistake which I am too lazy to fix)