Please explain to me this one aspect of the Electoral College!

[HappyGrace]

I'm trying to make heads or tails of it. I think I mostly have it except for this:

 

How can the popular vote be different than the electoral vote if the popular vote in each state IS the electoral vote?

 

Is it because of the different numbers of electoral votes in each state? Like a candidate may win a majority in the number of popular votes over the whole nation, but not win the electoral vote in enough states (the states that he/she wins electoral votes in are smaller)?

 

Please explain it like I'm stupid-for some reason, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it, despite reading a children's level book about it to try to figure it out!

[regentrude]

How can the popular vote be different than the electoral vote if the popular vote in each state IS the electoral vote?

Is it because of the different numbers of electoral votes in each state? Like a candidate may win a majority in the number of popular votes over the whole nation, but not win the electoral vote in enough states (the states that he/she wins electoral votes in are smaller)?

 

 

The bolded.

Happens if the winner of the electoral vote wins by a very small margin in the important states. The loser could have very large margins in the states he won, with the popular vote outweighing the electoral college's.

 

In a hypothetical worst-case scenario:

In a two-candidate race, with equal voter turnout in every district and no faithless electors, a candidate could win the electoral college while winning only about 22% of the nationwide popular vote. This would require the candidate in question to win each one of the following states by just one vote: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming

Clearly, something like tis does not happen in practice, but the system would allow for it to happen.

 

There have been only a handful of elections where the electoral vote was not the popular vote. 2000, for example.

Edited November 2, 2012 by regentrude

[HappyGrace]

So can it ever happen the other way, that they win enough electoral votes but not the popular vote? I would think that couldn't happen.

[Mama Geek]

Look at it this way Alaska has about 600,000 people, New York has 19,500,000. Alaska has few electoral votes b/c their population is smaller. Even if all 600,000 people in Alaska voted for one candidate and just under half of the population voted for the same candidate, therefore winning the popular election, the other candidate would still have all the electoral votes from NY and win.

[momofkhm]

Look at it this way Alaska has about 600,000 people, New York has 19,500,000. Alaska has few electoral votes b/c their population is smaller. Even if all 600,000 people in Alaska voted for one candidate and just under half of the population voted for the same candidate, therefore winning the popular election, the other candidate would still have all the electoral votes from NY and win.

 

I *think* this is why there has been some discussion in the past about allowing states to split their electoral votes. So that in this example, NY could split their votes to more accurately show how the people of NY voted.

[OrdinaryTime]

So can it ever happen the other way, that they win enough electoral votes but not the popular vote? I would think that couldn't happen.

Yes, both happen at the same time. One candidate can win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote; the other candidate would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote.

 

Interesting tidbit: Maine actually doesn't have a winner-takes-all system for electoral votes. The electoral votes of the state are given congressional district by congressional district. One of the candidate this time around actually spent a lot of money in just one congressional district in Maine in hopes to win that 1 electoral vote as a possible tie-breaker.

[LucyStoner]

Because the minority vote (not talking race here, just the side with the fewest votes) in a large state could be MUCH larger than the whole population of many other states. There are fewer people in some states than there are in just one populous city or county. The number of voters per a representative or elector is much higher in populated areas than it is in say Montana.

[Beth S]

But those of us who live far away from NYC and LA are very grateful for the Electoral College.

 

If the President was elected purely by a popular vote, he really would only need to campaign in the big cities. I've heard Nevada is a significant swing state this time, which is rather interesting because of its small population.

[regentrude]

But those of us who live far away from NYC and LA are very grateful for the Electoral College.

If the President was elected purely by a popular vote, he really would only need to campaign in the big cities.

 

Make that "some of us".

 

Because it also means that many people in many states know from the outset that, because of their geographic location, their vote does not matter at all. It's as if they don't exist.

[In The Great White North]

I *think* this is why there has been some discussion in the past about allowing states to split their electoral votes.

 

They are already allowed to. It is up to each state. Some do, some don't

[HappyGrace]

Because it also means that many people in many states know from the outset that, because of their geographic location, their vote does not matter at all. It's as if they don't exist.

 

Does that mean like in NY, who always goes blue, the popular vote never matters so why bother voting if you are red? (OR vice versa in a firmly red state?)

 

I did wonder about that.

[GWOB]

Yes, both happen at the same time. One candidate can win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote; the other candidate would lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote.

 

Interesting tidbit: Maine actually doesn't have a winner-takes-all system for electoral votes. The electoral votes of the state are given congressional district by congressional district. One of the candidate this time around actually spent a lot of money in just one congressional district in Maine in hopes to win that 1 electoral vote as a possible tie-breaker.

 

Nebraska can split its electoral votes as well. In 2008, Omaha went one way while the rest of the state went the other way.

[LucyStoner]

So can it ever happen the other way, that they win enough electoral votes but not the popular vote? I would think that couldn't happen.

 

:confused: isn't that what the OP is talking about?

 

4 presidents have taken office after losing the nationwide popular vote. John Quincy Addams was picked by the House after losing the popular vote but managing a tie in the electoral college. Most recently, George W. Bush lost the popular vote but won the presidency. Digging back in history the same thing happened with Benjamin Harrison and Rutherford Hayes. All of these four presidents lost the popular vote. Otherwise we would all know about a President Tilden and a President Gore. The two other winners of the popular vote but losers of the presidency won it all in a different election. Andrew Jackson and Grover Cleveland.

[OrdinaryTime]

They are already allowed to. It is up to each state. Some do, some don't

 

Exactly right. Besides Maine, I think Nebraska may also split its electoral votes.

[momofkhm]

They are already allowed to. It is up to each state. Some do, some don't

 

Thanks. Sometimes my head just spins with information. I can't keep track of what has been talked about, what has been decided and what is pure fiction - a "what if" example.

[GWOB]

Make that "some of us".

 

Because it also means that many people in many states know from the outset that, because of their geographic location, their vote does not matter at all. It's as if they don't exist.

 

:iagree: Aside from Omaha, no one ever campaigns here. It stinks.

 

They are already allowed to. It is up to each state. Some do, some don't

 

Only Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes.

 

Does that mean like in NY, who always goes blue, the popular vote never matters so why bother voting if you are red? (OR vice versa in a firmly red state?)

 

I did wonder about that.

 

It sure feels that way.:glare:

[OrdinaryTime]

Nebraska can split its electoral votes as well. In 2008, Omaha went one way while the rest of the state went the other way.

 

Yep. I just remembered that. I think Maine and Nebraska are the only two states who choose a apportioned approach versus a winner-take-all approach.

[happypamama]

Does that mean like in NY, who always goes blue, the popular vote never matters so why bother voting if you are red? (OR vice versa in a firmly red state?)

 

I did wonder about that.

 

That's how it was when we lived in MD -- it just didn't matter. No matter what side we were on, it was so overwhelmingly a blue state that we could have skipped voting. We did still vote, however (I stood in the sun in line for several hours, pregnant, with a 2yo to cast that vote!), because I feel it's important to register my opinion.

 

PA was a swing state last time, so I dragged all the kids, including a 10-day-old baby, out. And I will take all four of them to do it again this time.

[LucyStoner]

Does that mean like in NY, who always goes blue, the popular vote never matters so why bother voting if you are red? (OR vice versa in a firmly red state?)

 

I did wonder about that.

 

That's a philosophical question each voter gets to decide. It seems like it would work the other way too- if you live in New York and you're a Democrat, why bother voting since the state will go your way? I think the trouble is that we really don't know the full read of many states because so many folks don't even bother to register to vote, much less actually vote if they did register.

[justamouse]

Make that "some of us".

 

Because it also means that many people in many states know from the outset that, because of their geographic location, their vote does not matter at all. It's as if they don't exist.

 

:iagree:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

So can it ever happen the other way, that they win enough electoral votes but not the popular vote? I would think that couldn't happen.

 

Yes that happened in 2000 when George Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote.

[QueenCat]

So can it ever happen the other way, that they win enough electoral votes but not the popular vote? I would think that couldn't happen.

 

It's happened a few times. Most recently, in 2000, with George W Bush. The electoral college votes trumps popular vote by law.

[CAMom]

Make that "some of us".

 

Because it also means that many people in many states know from the outset that, because of their geographic location, their vote does not matter at all. It's as if they don't exist.

 

Pretty much. They always "call" California way before our polling places close. I almost always vote after dinner. So, what's the point? No matter which way I decide to vote, it's of no consequence.

 

I always vote, though because we have propositions, local races, etc. But, who I vote for for president, US senator, etc. doesn't make a whit of difference!:tongue_smilie:

[misty.warden]

So can it ever happen the other way, that they win enough electoral votes but not the popular vote? I would think that couldn't happen.

 

Um, that's exactly what happened in 2000. And with John Quincy Adams losing to Andrew Jackson in 1824, and Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

 

Electors are not always required to vote as the population does (scary thought, eh?) and if there's a tie in the electoral votes the House of Representatives has to decide. It's a convoluted mess from there.

[Pawz4me]

and if there's a tie in the electoral votes the House of Representatives has to decide. It's a convoluted mess from there.

 

If there's an Electoral College tie then the House picks the president and the Senate picks the vice president. And it's the newly-elected Congress who does it. And as per the usual procedure, the current vice president would get to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, if needed. Clear as mud?:tongue_smilie:

[stripe]

If there's an Electoral College tie then the House picks the president and the Senate picks the vice president.

 

Which could be really exciting!

[Georgiana Daniels]

I really do wish all the states broke out their electoral votes. To me, that's more accurate than all going one way.

[stripe]

I really do wish all the states broke out their electoral votes. To me, that's more accurate than all going one way.

 

I wish we had more parties. The political group sort, and the getting together and having fun sort. It seems so much more interesting.

 

What's Ross Perot up to these days, anyhow?

[Farrar]

I hope this isn't too political, but the two reforms that I think would radically change how politics is done in our country would be making all the states split their electoral votes and stopping political-party based gerrymandering. Suddenly, people in all "red" or "blue" states wouldn't feel like their votes didn't matter. And congressional elections would suddenly be competitive again, with more congresspeople having to play to the center and compromise to win.

[shanvan]

Make that "some of us".

 

Because it also means that many people in many states know from the outset that, because of their geographic location, their vote does not matter at all. It's as if they don't exist.

 

Yup.

[Pawz4me]

I hope this isn't too political, but the two reforms that I think would radically change how politics is done in our country would be making all the states split their electoral votes and stopping political-party based gerrymandering. Suddenly, people in all "red" or "blue" states wouldn't feel like their votes didn't matter. And congressional elections would suddenly be competitive again, with more congresspeople having to play to the center and compromise to win.

 

:iagree:

[Plateau Mama]

Does that mean like in NY, who always goes blue, the popular vote never matters so why bother voting if you are red? (OR vice versa in a firmly red state?)

 

I did wonder about that.

 

 

Washington always goes Blue. Most of the districts in the state (all in Eastern WA) go Red but because Western WA has a much higher population it always goes Blue.

[justLisa]

I hope this isn't too political, but the two reforms that I think would radically change how politics is done in our country would be making all the states split their electoral votes and stopping political-party based gerrymandering. Suddenly, people in all "red" or "blue" states wouldn't feel like their votes didn't matter. And congressional elections would suddenly be competitive again, with more congresspeople having to play to the center and compromise to win.

 

I completely agree with this

[twoxcell]

Make that "some of us".

 

Because it also means that many people in many states know from the outset that, because of their geographic location, their vote does not matter at all. It's as if they don't exist.

:iagree:and it is quite frustrating. Portland always decides our States Votes.

[Amy Jo]

I just wanted it :party: because Montana was mentioned twice on the first page of this thread!:hurray: No one ever thinks of us. I do feel my vote is irrelevant in the presidential race, but we do have a Senate race that will matter this year (at least every state gets two senators), and several things at the state level that are important.

 

My understanding was that the electoral college was intended to increase the margins in most elections. Since a lot of times the popular vote is very close, it was to give a more clear victory to the winner. Is that correct? (Obviously it doesn't work all the time.) And I'd love too see states split their electoral votes. And term limits on congress/senate. It would make things more interesting to have new people in.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I wish we had more parties. The political group sort, and the getting together and having fun sort. It seems so much more interesting.

 

What's Ross Perot up to these days, anyhow?

 

LOL!!! Yes.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I just wanted it :party: because Montana was mentioned twice on the first page of this thread!:hurray: No one ever thinks of us. I do feel my vote is irrelevant in the presidential race, but we do have a Senate race that will matter this year (at least every state gets two senators), and several things at the state level that are important.

 

My understanding was that the electoral college was intended to increase the margins in most elections. Since a lot of times the popular vote is very close, it was to give a more clear victory to the winner. Is that correct? (Obviously it doesn't work all the time.) And I'd love too see states split their electoral votes. And term limits on congress/senate. It would make things more interesting to have new people in.

 

Yes, yes, yes to term limits!!!!

[GWOB]

I just wanted it :party: because Montana was mentioned twice on the first page of this thread!:hurray: No one ever thinks of us. I do feel my vote is irrelevant in the presidential race, but we do have a Senate race that will matter this year (at least every state gets two senators), and several things at the state level that are important.

 

My understanding was that the electoral college was intended to increase the margins in most elections. Since a lot of times the popular vote is very close, it was to give a more clear victory to the winner. Is that correct? (Obviously it doesn't work all the time.) And I'd love too see states split their electoral votes. And term limits on congress/senate. It would make things more interesting to have new people in.

 

Woohoo for term limits! Although, due to an obviously biased term-limit amendment on my ballot this year, I cannot discuss term limits reasonably without getting way too political.

[TravelingChris]

Ross Perot has endorsed the Romney-Ryan ticket. I had wondered what had happened to him and then I heard this news about a month ago. He is 82 now.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Haven't heard anything about Ross in years. Wasn't he the economy guy? I don't remember much from back then (LOL!) only that he divided the vote.

[tex-mex]

Haven't heard anything about Ross in years. Wasn't he the economy guy? I don't remember much from back then (LOL!) only that he divided the vote.

I understood it being a TX vs TX vendetta due to his dislike of Bush Jr (as the TX Gubnatorial Election folks thought he would run in 1990) to divide the vote and get Clinton into office?

 

Perot sold EDS a while back for a pretty penny and who knows what he is doing now.

Edited November 3, 2012 by tex-mex

[Georgiana Daniels]

Oooo, gotcha.

 

Man, that seems like eons ago!

[joannqn]

Washington always goes Blue. Most of the districts in the state (all in Eastern WA) go Red but because Western WA has a much higher population it always goes Blue.

 

:iagree:

 

 

Elections, regardless of which person or initiative we're talking about, rarely go the way I vote. And when the does go the way I want, the legislature tends to override the vote.

[stripe]

Just to be clear -- I am not expressing a support for or opposition to Ross Perot's actual positions. I simply found it interesting as a young person to see a third party candidate gain so much political support and show what could happen as an alternative to the big two parties, and the political ramifications (good and bad) of having a third party candidate gain popularity.

 

Haven't heard anything about Ross in years. Wasn't he the economy guy? I don't remember much from back then (LOL!) only that he divided the vote.

 

Ha, I remember not having heard of him at all until this new boy moved in from a different part of the country, and he was always talking about Perot in this history class I was in.

 

I remember a strange combination of concern for the American economy and how it would be devastated by NAFTA (the "giant sucking sound" from the South, i.e., Mexico), his distinctive appearance (very short, with protruding ears, almost elfin overall) with a screeching voice in a strong accent, and bizarre number of strange phrasings and rambling dialogs (the one about a horse eating peanut butter, for example). Plus he had a whole alien abduction thing going on.

 

He certainly did have a major impact on the '92 election, and was the only serious three party candidate I've ever seen. I am not certain I think a one or two time third party candidate is a great thing in a system that's really just two party, but I think governments that allow a greater number of parties and coalitions between them to get to a majority, provide an interesting contrast in approach.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Just to be clear -- I am not expressing a support for or opposition to Ross Perot's actual positions. I simply found it interesting as a young person to see a third party candidate gain so much political support and show what could happen as an alternative to the big two parties, and the political ramifications (good and bad) of having a third party candidate gain popularity.

 

 

 

Ha, I remember not having heard of him at all until this new boy moved in from a different part of the country, and he was always talking about Perot in this history class I was in.

 

I remember a strange combination of concern for the American economy and how it would be devastated by NAFTA (the "giant sucking sound" from the South, i.e., Mexico), his distinctive appearance (very short, with protruding ears, almost elfin overall) with a screeching voice in a strong accent, and bizarre number of strange phrasings and rambling dialogs (the one about a horse eating peanut butter, for example). Plus he had a whole alien abduction thing going on.

 

He certainly did have a major impact on the '92 election, and was the only serious three party candidate I've ever seen. I am not certain I think a one or two time third party candidate is a great thing in a system that's really just two party, but I think governments that allow a greater number of parties and coalitions between them to get to a majority, provide an interesting contrast in approach.

 

I'd totally forgotten about the alien abduction thing! LOL, memories.

[stripe]

I'd totally forgotten about the alien abduction thing! LOL, memories.

 

There was a lot of that in the 90s. Usually accompanied by lots of stories of probing of body cavities. :ack2:

 

All I have to say is, thank God that's no longer in vogue.

[Sugarfoot]

I'm trying to make heads or tails of it. I think I mostly have it except for this:

 

How can the popular vote be different than the electoral vote if the popular vote in each state IS the electoral vote?

 

Is it because of the different numbers of electoral votes in each state? Like a candidate may win a majority in the number of popular votes over the whole nation, but not win the electoral vote in enough states (the states that he/she wins electoral votes in are smaller)?

 

Please explain it like I'm stupid-for some reason, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it, despite reading a children's level book about it to try to figure it out!

 

So can it ever happen the other way, that they win enough electoral votes but not the popular vote? I would think that couldn't happen.

 

I remember having to "prove" exactly how this could happen in 7th grade social studies. (a long time ago ;)) We had to show every state that our candidate won/lost and how that added up to an electoral victory but a popular loss.

[Georgiana Daniels]

There was a lot of that in the 90s. Usually accompanied by lots of stories of probing of body cavities. :ack2:

 

All I have to say is, thank God that's no longer in vogue.

 

No kidding! Wasn't there someone during the last election who had a similar story? I can't Dennis Kusinich (how sp?) or maybe it was someone else.

 

Seriously, even if I had a true story like that I'd totally keep it to myself.

[stripe]

No kidding! Wasn't there someone during the last election who had a similar story? I can't Dennis Kusinich (how sp?) or maybe it was someone else.

 

Ugh, you're totally right, I forgot that. He is friends with Shirley MacLaine, too.

 

More than 80 million Americans believe UFOs exist, though, so no wonder some of them run for political office.

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/two-thirds-of-americans-think-barack-obama-is-better-suited-to-handle-an-alien-invasion-than-mitt-romney-160533735.html

[Mrs Mungo]

I hope this isn't too political, but the two reforms that I think would radically change how politics is done in our country would be making all the states split their electoral votes and stopping political-party based gerrymandering. Suddenly, people in all "red" or "blue" states wouldn't feel like their votes didn't matter. And congressional elections would suddenly be competitive again, with more congresspeople having to play to the center and compromise to win.

 

It would be interesting, for sure. Oklahoma has 7 electoral votes. Around 35% of people in Oklahoma vote Democrat. If one-third of the electoral votes went to the Democrat, then I think you'd actually see a lot more people vote in Oklahoma. A lot of people on *both* sides don't currently vote because it's consistently a red state with winner-take-all electoral votes.