Portal
Home
Calendar
Gallery
FAQ
Search
Register
Log inThe Electoral College?
Page 1 of 1•
The Electoral College?
by Outspoken on Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:14 pm
I think that this is one of the things that has remained the most confusing to me ever since I was old enough to vote. I know that the Founding Fathers put this in place to "protect the people" from making a mistake. If the American people vote to elect a candidate to the office of the Presidency, how can it be considered a "mistake"? 
The "people" have voted for who they want. Why should someone have the right to overturn that? 
After doing some "surfing", I came upon this site which explains the history and purpose of the Electoral College. At the end of this post I have provided a link for anyone else who may be interested, to check it out.
I actually didn't bother to "take the time" to vote for many years because it seemed like my vote didn't really matter. No matter who the American voters "chose", the Electoral College had the right under the Constitution to decide otherwise.
I still see a problem with this system to this day and am curious as to whether there are others out there who feel the same.
How the Electoral College Works
After the 2000 U.S. presidential election, just about everybody in the United States was talking about the Electoral College. In the end, of course, Gore won the popular vote (more Americans voted for him), but Bush actually won the presidency, because he was awarded the majority of the votes in the Electoral College.
In this article, we'll explain how this interesting system works. How is it that a candidate could win more votes overall and yet not be elected? What would happen if there were a tie in the Electoral College? Who then would elect the president? You will find out about the past elections that weren't decided on Election Day but weeks later, when the Electoral College met, and some that weren't decided until months later. You'll also learn about the strange election of the first son of a former president to win the presidency.
History of the Electoral College
Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared. But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.
The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.
Selecting Electors
If you're wondering how someone becomes an elector, it turns out it's not the exact same process across the board. It can actually differ from state to state. In general, though, the two most common ways are:
* The elector is nominated by his or her state party committee (perhaps to reward many years of service to the party).
* The elector "campaigns" for a spot and the decision is made during a vote held at the state's party convention.
There's the how, but what about the "what" -- as in, "What are the required qualifications of an elector?" There really aren't any. According to the National Archives and Records (NARA) Web site, "the U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors." While the constitution doesn't dictate what an elector should know or be able to do, it does suggest who or what an elector cannot be:
* He or she cannot be a Representative or Senator
* He or she cannot be a high-ranking U.S. official in a position of "trust or profit"
* He or she cannot be someone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S.
Now, what about the "who?" Who is it that gets nominated or voted in and assigned to the post?
Usually, electors are people who are highly politically active in their party (be it Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican ...) or connected somehow to the political arena, such as: activists, party leaders, elected officials of the state and even people who have ties (political and/or personal) to the Presidential candidates, themselves.
So, we've covered the how, what and who -- but that's not all! There's still faithless electors, winner-takes-all and the district system to consider...
Electoral College Voting
The final electors for each state are voted on by the state's residents on voting day. In many states, the electors' names are printed on the ballots -- where those names "sit" depends on the state. For example, the electors could be listed directly under the presidential candidates' names (Democrats with the Democratic nominee, Libertarians with the Libertarian nominee, Republicans with the Republican nominee and so on) or simply grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. And, of course, the names might not even be listed at all. Essentially, it is the electors who get voted "in" who end up casting the "real" vote. Hold on, it seems like the last two sentences don't go together, "How can someone be voted "in" if they're not even on a ballot?" Consider this information from the Department of the Secretary of State for North Carolina:
Under North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, the names of candidates for electors of President and Vice-President nominated by any political party recognized in this State under North Carolina General Statute § 163-96 or by any unaffiliated candidate for President of the United States who has qualified to have his name printed on the general election ballot under North Carolina General Statute § 163-122 must be filed with the Secretary of State. A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors of the party or unaffiliated candidate by which those candidates for elector were nominated and whose names have been filed with the Secretary of State.
The key is this part, "A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors..." This is the case for 48 states -- it's known as the "winner-take-all system." The other system, known as the "district system," is observed in both Maine and Nebraska. In these states, two electors' votes are made based on the candidate who received the most votes statewide. The remaining electoral votes go by congressional districts, awarding the vote to the candidate who received the most votes in each district.
Now, in regard to "winner-take-all" states, keep in mind what we said in the last section: Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal. Although if you do vote against your party, you'll most likely be simultaneously forfeiting your post as elector and you may even incur a hefty fine.
"Faithless Electors"
It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called "faithless electors."
In response to these faithless electors' actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector's pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.
It's important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.
The rest can be read at the following link: http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college4.htm
I welcome your input and comments on this system, which I personally see as flawed and something that should have been amended to fit the times and increase in population of the United States. There has been a major change in the way that information can be gotten out to "the people" over the ways of the past. The days of "Whistle Stops" are gone and the media is able to reach a much wider range of voters then over 200 years ago. The people are much better informed and can be so from the comfort of their own homes, if they choose.
(This is, of course, only my opinion. I welcome yours.
)
The "people" have voted for who they want. Why should someone have the right to overturn that? After doing some "surfing", I came upon this site which explains the history and purpose of the Electoral College. At the end of this post I have provided a link for anyone else who may be interested, to check it out. I actually didn't bother to "take the time" to vote for many years because it seemed like my vote didn't really matter. No matter who the American voters "chose", the Electoral College had the right under the Constitution to decide otherwise.
I still see a problem with this system to this day and am curious as to whether there are others out there who feel the same. How the Electoral College Works
After the 2000 U.S. presidential election, just about everybody in the United States was talking about the Electoral College. In the end, of course, Gore won the popular vote (more Americans voted for him), but Bush actually won the presidency, because he was awarded the majority of the votes in the Electoral College.
In this article, we'll explain how this interesting system works. How is it that a candidate could win more votes overall and yet not be elected? What would happen if there were a tie in the Electoral College? Who then would elect the president? You will find out about the past elections that weren't decided on Election Day but weeks later, when the Electoral College met, and some that weren't decided until months later. You'll also learn about the strange election of the first son of a former president to win the presidency.
History of the Electoral College
Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. Their votes will be recorded and counted, and winners will be declared. But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote.
The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.
Selecting Electors
If you're wondering how someone becomes an elector, it turns out it's not the exact same process across the board. It can actually differ from state to state. In general, though, the two most common ways are:
* The elector is nominated by his or her state party committee (perhaps to reward many years of service to the party).
* The elector "campaigns" for a spot and the decision is made during a vote held at the state's party convention.
There's the how, but what about the "what" -- as in, "What are the required qualifications of an elector?" There really aren't any. According to the National Archives and Records (NARA) Web site, "the U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors." While the constitution doesn't dictate what an elector should know or be able to do, it does suggest who or what an elector cannot be:
* He or she cannot be a Representative or Senator
* He or she cannot be a high-ranking U.S. official in a position of "trust or profit"
* He or she cannot be someone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S.
Now, what about the "who?" Who is it that gets nominated or voted in and assigned to the post?
Usually, electors are people who are highly politically active in their party (be it Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican ...) or connected somehow to the political arena, such as: activists, party leaders, elected officials of the state and even people who have ties (political and/or personal) to the Presidential candidates, themselves.
So, we've covered the how, what and who -- but that's not all! There's still faithless electors, winner-takes-all and the district system to consider...
Electoral College Voting
The final electors for each state are voted on by the state's residents on voting day. In many states, the electors' names are printed on the ballots -- where those names "sit" depends on the state. For example, the electors could be listed directly under the presidential candidates' names (Democrats with the Democratic nominee, Libertarians with the Libertarian nominee, Republicans with the Republican nominee and so on) or simply grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. And, of course, the names might not even be listed at all. Essentially, it is the electors who get voted "in" who end up casting the "real" vote. Hold on, it seems like the last two sentences don't go together, "How can someone be voted "in" if they're not even on a ballot?" Consider this information from the Department of the Secretary of State for North Carolina:
Under North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, the names of candidates for electors of President and Vice-President nominated by any political party recognized in this State under North Carolina General Statute § 163-96 or by any unaffiliated candidate for President of the United States who has qualified to have his name printed on the general election ballot under North Carolina General Statute § 163-122 must be filed with the Secretary of State. A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors of the party or unaffiliated candidate by which those candidates for elector were nominated and whose names have been filed with the Secretary of State.
The key is this part, "A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors..." This is the case for 48 states -- it's known as the "winner-take-all system." The other system, known as the "district system," is observed in both Maine and Nebraska. In these states, two electors' votes are made based on the candidate who received the most votes statewide. The remaining electoral votes go by congressional districts, awarding the vote to the candidate who received the most votes in each district.
Now, in regard to "winner-take-all" states, keep in mind what we said in the last section: Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal. Although if you do vote against your party, you'll most likely be simultaneously forfeiting your post as elector and you may even incur a hefty fine.
"Faithless Electors"
It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called "faithless electors."
In response to these faithless electors' actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector's pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.
It's important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.
The rest can be read at the following link: http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college4.htm
I welcome your input and comments on this system, which I personally see as flawed and something that should have been amended to fit the times and increase in population of the United States. There has been a major change in the way that information can be gotten out to "the people" over the ways of the past. The days of "Whistle Stops" are gone and the media is able to reach a much wider range of voters then over 200 years ago. The people are much better informed and can be so from the comfort of their own homes, if they choose.
(This is, of course, only my opinion. I welcome yours.
)"Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything."
Plato (427-347 BC)
Plato (427-347 BC)
Re: The Electoral College?
by Outspoken on Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:18 pm
House, Senate kill popular vote measure
The Associated Press
AUGUSTA, Maine — A bill to have Maine join other states in a national popular vote to elect future presidents of the United States is dead.
The House and Senate on Monday both voted against the bill, killing it for this year’s session.
The bill proposed an interstate compact among the states to elect the president by national popular vote. Under the compact, the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would win.
http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=163033&zoneid=500
Now there's a shock. You'll notice that the "House" and "Senate" made the decision, not the people who should have truly been given that option. Once again the Politicians get to make the decisions that affect the American people the most. Imagine this: The Candidate that the "People" chooses actually occupying the Oval Office. Not the one that the Electoral College "feels" should be there. What a novel thought.
So, what are the chances this bill will come back up for vote in the next session? It would be nice if the "people" of this State were allowed to vote on this. Somehow I see the end result being quite different from this one. 
The Associated Press
AUGUSTA, Maine — A bill to have Maine join other states in a national popular vote to elect future presidents of the United States is dead.
The House and Senate on Monday both voted against the bill, killing it for this year’s session.
The bill proposed an interstate compact among the states to elect the president by national popular vote. Under the compact, the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would win.
http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=163033&zoneid=500
Now there's a shock.
You'll notice that the "House" and "Senate" made the decision, not the people who should have truly been given that option. Once again the Politicians get to make the decisions that affect the American people the most. Imagine this: The Candidate that the "People" chooses actually occupying the Oval Office. Not the one that the Electoral College "feels" should be there. What a novel thought. So, what are the chances this bill will come back up for vote in the next session?
It would be nice if the "people" of this State were allowed to vote on this. Somehow I see the end result being quite different from this one. "Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything."
Plato (427-347 BC)
Plato (427-347 BC)