Can someone explain the USA Electoral College System please.

[Master Disaster]

Preface: This topic is not about the electoral candidates or the result of the election so please don't turn it into a Trump Vs Biden thread.

 

OK so I'm on the wrong side of 38 and yesterday I realised that I don't understand the US election process at all but further to that, I don't understand the point of the system either. I'm sure there are others here not from the US who don't fully understand it either.

 

My understanding is thusly...

 

People from each state cast votes, the votes are counted on a state by state basis and the candidate that gets the most votes in any given state can choose an election candidate to go to the electoral college and nominate them for the presidency (usually done a few weeks after the vote). The person with the most nominations is the overall winner.

 

Does that sound right? So then my questions are the following.

 

1) Why the extra step? It just seems needlessly complicated and unnecessary to me. I realise its a constitutional thing and has been done that way forever, I just don't understand why.

2) Does the electoral candidate have to vote for the person who nominated them or can they choose the other guy/girl at the last minute? Yes I know this is very unlikely since the winner will nominate a supporter but theoretically, could it happen?

3) What's wrong with just counting votes and the person with the most wins? Since there are 52 states is it not possible for each runner to win 26 states each and the entire thing end in a tie?

 

Again please don't post anything against the ToS.

 

Thanks.

[Totallycasual]

 

[Rybo]

Think of it like a representative system.  Each state holds an election to decide who to represent them in the presidential election.  These people are called electors, and they're part of the electoral college.  Each state gets 2 electors + some number more based on their population.  Those delegates then cast their votes after the November 3rd election (I forget the exact date, but it's pretty much a formality: most electors aren't allowed to vote against the candidate they promised to vote for).  That's what the number 270 you've probably seen is: it's a simple majority of the delegates in the electoral college.  

 

As for why it's done that way, the main reason is that it's because the Constitution says to do it that way.  Why does it say to do it that way?  I suspect it's the idea in the US that states are their own sovereign entities.  They should have their own say in things, same as the general population.  That has been muddied since the founding.  All states now just apportion their electors based on popular vote rather than letting the state itself choose their 2 electors, and the states no longer elect people to the Senate.  There's all kinds of purported benefits and drawbacks, but I feel like the *reason* the Electoral College was created this way is to give states the ability to represent themselves in the goings-on of the federal government, though it's obviously not cited specifically in the Constitution (it may be in the founding fathers' literature, but I'm not a scholar of it so I'm not sure). 

[jeanluckpiccard]

The overly simply explanation is each state has a designated number of electors (which is dependent on the states population) so, states like California will have several more electors (or representation) than, say Utah. The people vote for these electors who essentially promise to vote for their presidential candidate. Whichever presidential candidate reaches (or exceeds 270) electors is therefore elected president. It gets more complicated in certain states that can have split electors, but it's rare that they actually affect an election. America's founding fathers warned against a direct democracy (the voters directly voting for president) therefore, the U.S. is not actually a democracy, but a republic. Now it IS possible for 2 presidential candidates to be tied 269-269, where the House of Representatives picks the president and the Senate determines the VP, but the last time this happened was 200 years ago...

[DavidKalinowski]

We only have 50 official states. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands are US territories. They do not get a say in the election of the president. Others have explained the electoral college, but I wanted to point the number of states out. Also Washington D.C. is not a state but does have electoral college votes equal to the least populated state in the nation. (23rd amendment)

[Shreyas1]

Quote

1) Why the extra step? It just seems needlessly complicated and unnecessary to me. I realise its a constitutional thing and has been done that way forever, I just don't understand why.

2) Does the electoral candidate have to vote for the person who nominated them or can they choose the other guy/girl at the last minute? Yes I know this is very unlikely since the winner will nominate a supporter but theoretically, could it happen?

3) What's wrong with just counting votes and the person with the most wins? Since there are 52 states is it not possible for each runner to win 26 states each and the entire thing end in a tie?

1) The main argument is that different states have different priorities. Someone from California, for example, will want different policy than someone in Wyoming. However, if we had a popular vote, what the state of California wants would be federal law and the state of Wyoming has no say. For example, some federal policy that may work really well or has a lot of popular support in the state of California may not be as popular in Wyoming, so in this case Wyoming still has their say. Someone in WY probably doesn't know what is best for CA and someone in CA probably doesn't know what is best for WY.  I won't go into much more detail bc I don't want to bring politics into an apolitical forum.

 

2) Yes, they can choose whoever they want. Generally, electors pledge that they will vote for who the state decided. If they break their pledge, this is called a faithless elector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

However, some electors do not pledge at all and they can vote whichever way they want.

 

This is however, an extremely rare occurrence.

 

3) In the case of a tie (269 electoral votes each, since different states have different electoral counts), the house selects a the next president and the senate selects the next vice president. Again, this is highly unlikely.

 

 

[IkeaGnome]

8 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Preface: This topic is not about the electoral candidates or the result of the election so please don't turn it into a Trump Vs Biden thread.

 

OK so I'm on the wrong side of 38 and yesterday I realised that I don't understand the US election process at all but further to that, I don't understand the point of the system either. I'm sure there are others here not from the US who don't fully understand it either.

 

My understanding is thusly...

 

People from each state cast votes, the votes are counted on a state by state basis and the candidate that gets the most votes in any given state can choose an election candidate to go to the electoral college and nominate them for the presidency (usually done a few weeks after the vote). The person with the most nominations is the overall winner.

 

Does that sound right? So then my questions are the following.

 

1) Why the extra step? It just seems needlessly complicated and unnecessary to me. I realise its a constitutional thing and has been done that way forever, I just don't understand why.

2) Does the electoral candidate have to vote for the person who nominated them or can they choose the other guy/girl at the last minute? Yes I know this is very unlikely since the winner will nominate a supporter but theoretically, could it happen?

3) What's wrong with just counting votes and the person with the most wins? Since there are 52 states is it not possible for each runner to win 26 states each and the entire thing end in a tie?

 

Again please don't post anything against the ToS.

 

Thanks.

In addition to the rest of what's been said here. Electors tend to go hard for one party or the other. No middle. However, there is no punishment for them voting the other way or not voting at all. In theory, Party A elector could say "This person isn't worth my vote. I vote for Party B's candidate" and there's no legal recourse for them. Look up "faithless elector." 

Some states now have laws for that after the 2016 election. My bad.

8 minutes ago, comander said:

Oversimplified Summary: Each state elects electorates to vote on a president. Most of the time the electorates vote on the candidate to win the popular vote in the state/district they're associated with. 

Getting the majority of electorates wins the election. 

---


Right now we're looking at a situation where it COULD end up as 270 vs 269 - more mail in votes still need to be counted - and some states are going to be recounted. Moderate shifts in vote tallies could change the outcome. 

There's 528 electors. Can't be 270 vs 269.

[Master Disaster]

Thanks everyone.

 

So essentially the why is to try and balance the power between each state since each state will have different wants & needs.

 

That actually makes sense in a republic.

[IkeaGnome]

59 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Thanks everyone.

 

So essentially the why is to try and balance the power between each state since each state will have different wants & needs.

 

That actually makes sense in a republic.

That's how it ends up working, but it's more designed towards the individual person. It has it's down sides though. We have virtually no say in what happens out side of our state when you figure NYC has almost 20x the population of my entire state.

[LogicalDrm]

*** Thread locked ***

 

This is bit too close for crossing the line into actual political talking points (like changing the system). The current rule of politics is total, and we rather keep all of it out of sight than leave bits and pieces available.