Do you understand the Electoral College vs. Popular vote?

We have seen conversation and debate over scrapping the Electoral college and going solely to a popular vote. Why is this a bad idea and inconsistent with what the founding fathers wanted and why?

For starters the US is not a Democracy. The United States is a Constitutional Representative Republic. This means we elect people to act on our behalf in government. During Presidential elections there are 2 different dates for the vote.

The first vote is held Nov 8th and is a popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. When you cast your vote you are in reality voting for an elector (If your state votes for Clinton, you are voting for Democratic electors and the same holds for Trump and independents). The second vote occurs on Dec 19th. This second vote is where the President is officially chosen and is done so by the electors you voted for on Nov 8th.

The final phase resides with Congress where they accept the results of the elections.

A quick information video explaining how our system works and the issues with a popular vote verse the electoral college.



If the 2016 Presidential election were based on the popular vote only -



Why do I feel this is important to understand?

We are talking about changing the Constitution as a result of one party losing an election. The ramifications though go beyond the one election and the next go around could result in the party wanting change losing, creating yet another backlash and turmoil.

Before you decide to support or oppose a change please take the time to adequately understand what it is you are wanting to change and the ramifications of that change.

Knowledge is power.


ETA - At Trueman's request - viewing video in other languages-
Go to the video in youtube (and not the ATS embedded video here).
1 - Select the settings button, lower right of the main video screen.
2 - Select subtitles/CC
3 - Select auto-translate and select Spanish (or other languages).
4 - Video will play with subtitles for the language you chose.

ETA - En la petición de Trueman - inspección de vídeo en otras lenguas-
Vaya al vídeo en youtube (y no el ATS empotró el vídeo aquí).
1 - seleccionar el botón de ajustes, bajar el derecho de la pantalla de vídeo principal.
2 - seleccionar SUBTÍTULOS/CC
3 - escogido autotraducen y seleccionan el español (u otras lenguas).
4 - el vídeo jugará con subtítulos para la lengua que usted eligió.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Another reason our schools need to be evaluated and fixed. Good job professor.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Another reason our schools need to be evaluated and fixed. Good job professor.

That sir is the understatement of the millennium.

They can''t even grasp the basic concept of majority.

A majority is over 50%.

Hillary got 47% of the vote.

The majority (53%) did NOT vote for Hillary.

The EC is a great idea for a country as large as the USA. Or you get all the voting power isolated to the densly populated areas.


The problem I see (and where it needs reform) is the fact that in a number of states the electors can ignore the popular vote in there state. The reform should be that in ALL states the electors have to vote the way their state voted.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Great thread. You are doing what media should do.

Now we need the Spanish language version.

originally posted by: crazyewok
The EC is a great idea for a country as large as the USA. Or you get all the voting power isolated to the densly populated areas.


The problem I see (and where it needs reform) is the fact that in a number of states the electors can ignore the popular vote in there state. The reform should be that in ALL states the electors have to vote the way their state voted.

Currently electors are required to vote for the person the state carried. The bulk of the states have differing laws on that requirement and what happens if its violated. In addition each party also has requirements for electors and who they must vote for.

To be honest I am not entirely sure a state law / federal law could be passed and have dire consequences given how the electoral college is laid out in the Constitution. One purpose of the electoral college was to create a mechanism that allowed the ability to override the voters on the off chance they elected someone who was seriously unfit to hold the office. Passing laws to restrict the electoral college voting could be unconstitutional.

Personally I agree with you and my response is based on my understanding of how that system works.

Either way I have no desire to see the electoral college removed and a popular vote replace it. To me a popular vote would almost exclusively favor Democrats.

Starting to see tweets saying Trump won Popular vote as well
Trump 62,972,226
Clinton 62, 277,750

It is a very strange way to elect someone, all this waiting and counting after announcing a winner,
tbh I give up trying to work it all out, most sites are out of date and like Brexit you cannot keep asking for another go at it if you do not like the result.

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Xcathdra

Great thread. You are doing what media should do.

Now we need the Spanish language version.

Go to the video in youtube (and not the ATS embedded video here).
1 - Selected the settings button, lower right of the main video screen.
2 - Select subtitles/CC
3 - Select auto-translate and select Spanish (or other languages).

It will give you Spanish subtitles.




ETA - OP has been updated with how to view the video in other languages - credit to you - great idea.

nvm already posted...

Great read and good job!
I hope many read this and learn a little along the way!

I still don't get it after all these years, shouldn't the number of votes to a party be relative to the number of delagates?

In other words, 15 people vote for Hillary, 14 people vote for Trump, yet Trump gets more delagates. How can be?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: crazyewok
The EC is a great idea for a country as large as the USA. Or you get all the voting power isolated to the densly populated areas.


The problem I see (and where it needs reform) is the fact that in a number of states the electors can ignore the popular vote in there state. The reform should be that in ALL states the electors have to vote the way their state voted.

Currently electors are required to vote for the person the state carried.

This is like saying that someone is required to follow the speed limit because they have to pay a fine if they don't. I don't consider that to be a requirement. The analogy with driving isn't even a good one because Electoral College votes are made anonymously. The faithless elector in 2004 made their vote anonymously.

Perhaps most bizarrely of all, in 2004, an elector from Minnesota who was supposed to vote for John Kerry for president instead voted for John Edwards. (It’s believed that this was an accident, but since the votes were cast anonymously, we don’t really know for sure. Great system!)
SOURCE

What does the fine mean if no one knows who the one faithless elector was in 2004? I think it means nothing.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
They can''t even grasp the basic concept of majority.

A majority is over 50%.

Hillary got 47% of the vote.

The majority (53%) did NOT vote for Hillary.

I wish they'd stop saying she got the populist vote. She didn't!
Funny how CNN said he did on Tuesday night , then the next day they were saying she did wtf?

a reply to: 38181

Husband put it this way - the states elect the president, not the people themselves. So in order to win the presidency, the candidates have to win effectively 50 separate elections, not one big one. So effectively, even though in total one candidate might win more gross vote total across all those different elections because some states are more populous than others, all that matters is which candidate wins more of those separate state elections.

Think of it as Super, Super Tuesday like they have in primary season.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
They can''t even grasp the basic concept of majority.

A majority is over 50%.

Hillary got 47% of the vote.

The majority (53%) did NOT vote for Hillary.

When you factor in that voter participation (that is, the number of eligible voters v. the number who actually voted) has historically been around 55-60%, that means only 47% of 55% voted for her. In other words, about 24% of eligible voters actually voted for her.

originally posted by: freetheworld
Starting to see tweets saying Trump won Popular vote as well
Trump 62,972,226
Clinton 62, 277,750

It is a very strange way to elect someone, all this waiting and counting after announcing a winner,
tbh I give up trying to work it all out, most sites are out of date and like Brexit you cannot keep asking for another go at it if you do not like the result.

It's a fallacy that *any* candidate for President receives any percentage of a "popular" vote, because the elections were *not* popular vote elections, but rather elections to choose electors to represent a State and go to Congress to choose a President.

One effect of the electoral college "voting" is that it decreases voter *participation* in elections. Here's how: If I'm a conservative and I live in California, I might not even vote because my vote will be outnumbered 5:1; my vote won't make a difference, so I won't go to the polls.

Likewise, if I live in Wyoming I also might not vote, because WY is a solid (R) State whether I vote or not.

Thus the effect of our system is that participation rates will be lower than if we had a popular-vote election. This is why participation rates among eligible voters are historically ~60%.

So please, enough of this nonsense about who won the "popular" vote, because we absolutely did *not* have a popular vote election.

A great example is Bill Clinton's first election. He won with 43% of votes cast, meaning 57% of the people who voted did *not* want him to win; and participation in that election was about 55%, which means only about 22% of eligible voters actually voted for him. He did not win the "popular" vote by any stretched definition.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: 38181

Husband put it this way - the states elect the president, not the people themselves.

Nice to see someone who understands the system. The Constitution is an agreement among the *States* form a common government; thus each State is allowed to choose the method by which it sends electors. Another example is that the *States* have to ratify amendments to the Constitution, not the people.

Also, originally Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, because the intent was the Senate would represent the state's interests, as a political entity; and the House would represent the people. Getting rid of that and electing Senators by popular vote effectively gutted any representation the States may have in Congress.

The founding Fathers really thought all this through, it's not like they just slapped the Constitution together.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wonderful review of the American voting system for president and this is great information that all Ameican citizens should be aware of. What saddens me is that late-night buffoonery, such as the Daily show and Bill Mahar, are all crying for the end of the electoral college, something they were certain would save them a few weeks back. Now they are crying that the Electoral College is "outdated" and we need to make voting a Holiday, cause that's how you win an election, you rig it in your favor, not proper campaigning and supporting of issues.

Anyway great work, I can only hope that a few who need to read this will actually take their time and learn a bit about the American government.

Great thread- I had no idea so much of our population was in such a little area.

The one thing I can't wrap my head around is the two states that split their electoral votes. Maine is one of them- we have four votes. Three voted for clinton, even though both primary candidates got roughly the same popular vote here. I guess the electoral voters are more interested in the city folk than the rest of us? Or maybe they're just after their own personal agenda.