Free and Proper Elections

NCFPE Poltical Blog and News Tracker

Free and Proper Elections - NCFPE Poltical Blog and News Tracker

How Is It Possible For The Electoral Vote To Produce A Dif. Result Than The Nationwide Popular Vote?

No. Xaphelle you have no idea what you are taking about. Anyone that tells you your vote doesn’t count and that the Electoral College actually votes for the President is a buffon that failed basic Government in Jr. High.
The electoral college has a very important place in American politics. Without it candidates for President would ignore smaller states and would only campaign (thus make promises to) larger states and cities.
The electoral college works like this:
When you go to elect the President of the United States you are actually voting for a group of electors. The number of electors per state equals the number of Congressman in that state. Larger states have more electors then smaller states.
With a few exceptions (North Carolina and Colorado), those electors are required by state law to elect the person that has the most votes in the state. So, let’s say the Democratic Candidate for president beats the Republican Candidate by 6 votes in Florida. The Democratic Candidate would get all of Florida’s votes. The candidate with the majority of electoral votes wins the election.
Now lets say that each of the states were extremely close and the candidates were a few thousand popular votes away from each other, but the candidate with the fewer votes took California and New York. They would most likely win the Presidental Election even though they lost the popular vote.
Now why do we have this system instead of a general popular vote? The most important reason is that currently Presidental candidates need to worry about more then getting the largest number of votes. They can’t just try to win LA, New York and Chicago. The candidates have to give time to the smaller states because you never know how each state will effect the election (i.e. Gore not winning his home state of Tennessee and thus losing the 2000 election). This means that candidates must campaign in smaller states (which is important to each state financially) and make sure that when they are in office they are fullfilling their campaign promises.
EDIT: X – You do know that the United States is a federal democracy right? We have states that make up this country and state rights are a VERY IMPORTANT part of the US Constitution. The Electoral College is another way the framers of the Constitution ensured that ALL of the states had a say in the running of this country.
By the way, not all small states are ‘backwater racists’. Smaller states are anything that is not New York, California, Texas or Florida.

All comments are held until links can be removed.

  • Downriver Dave says:

    The problem is that the Electoral College system awards all of the state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins a majority of the votes cast. But if a candidate wins by a slim majority in large states he/she still gets ALL of the electoral votes from that state. The other candidate could win by a landslide in several small states and end up with more overall popular votes, but still lose because he/she didn’t get enough electoral votes. Historically, it has happened a couple of times. But, the system was set up in order to get the small states to ratify the Constitution. Remember it was the thirteen united STATES (capitalization intentional) that ratified the Constitution. It was not ratified by a vote of the people, but by the states’ individual legislatures.

    July 29, 2013 at 4:05 am
  • Mister J says:

    It only has once. In 2000, the electoral and popular vote went to Gore but the Supreme Court voted down partisan lines to put Bush in.

    July 29, 2013 at 9:40 am
  • Veteran says:

    Every state has delegates. The laws governing the election of the President ( they are about 200 years old ) state that whatever candidate wins the popular vote in a state gets all the electoral college votes. For example, in 2000, Bush got 47% of the popular vote and Gore got 48% in California. Since Gore got more popular votes, he got ALL of the California electoral college votes, then about 57. So those that voted for Bush actually didn’t vote for Bush, because Gore got all the delegates. The reason Bush won is because he won lots of red states and the corresponding amount of delegates. That is why Florida was so important. Not all the votes were counted, and everytime there was a recount, Bush got less. But the Supreme Court, after hearing from Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State who was also W’s Florida campaign manager, filed a counter brief with the Court leading to the award of the presidency to W. Gore actually won the popular count by about 600,000 votes nationwide. But because the red states tipped towards W, ( and many of those red states he won by less than 1% of the popular vote ) he still got all the red states electoral delegate votes. What this does is it gives more voting power to small states. 52,000 popular votes in Wyoming equals one electoral delegate vote. But it takes 165,000 popular votes in California to equal one electoral delegate vote, thereby giving more voting power to a citizen in Moosebreath Wyoming than one in Los Angeles, California.

    July 29, 2013 at 4:13 pm
  • commonse says:

    One can only pray for it . If a certain % of the state votes for one then the whole state and the electoral votes from that state goes to that person , not the popular votes.

    July 29, 2013 at 9:52 pm
  • 3D Farms says:

    Its all a ruse put on by the “elected officials” to make the populous believe they have an active roll in the process. “your vote is your voice” bs! I never voted for Bush and he is still screwing up the country. The Electoral College elects the president.

    July 30, 2013 at 2:42 am
  • Joshot says:

    Basically there isn’t representation in each state based on population, instead its based on a certain number of ‘points’ for each state.

    July 30, 2013 at 2:44 am
  • scorch_2 says:

    It has to do with how many people live in each state and how popular the candidate is in that state. For example, in the case of the Gore-Bush election, more people overall wanted Gore to be president. However, Bush won states with more electors (states with a larger population) so he ended up winning. For this to happen, that means more people liked Gore in states that Bush won than people liked Bush in states that Gore won.

    July 30, 2013 at 9:29 am
  • The Oracle says:

    it’s a scam to confuse you into thinking your vote counts. it’s really just a few fat rich white electorites that run THIS country. you didn’t know? ****OH!!! HAHA! i see now, thank you, it’s all about supporting the smaller, less populated states, you still don’t get it. SO FREAKING WHAT if the smaller states get ignored, those running for president who bypass those little states will have to suffer the consiquences of not getting those small town votes. SO FREAKING WHAT if they all just tried to win the most populated cities and states? isn’t that how it’s SUPPOSED TO WORK?? if they want more people to vote for them, they need to get more PEOPLE to vote for them. it doen’st matter where they live. and so what if they spent all their time and money in the most populated places, that’s where most people live. from where i sit, looks alot like it’s set up to NOT get the city folks “crazy liberal’ vote to count as much as a small town vote. thats what it looks like to me. and what’s so wrong with the idea that some less populated state might not get as much attention from those running, that’s what happens when you live in a less populated state, less people live there, hence, less money should be spent there. Oh, i could only IMAGINE the HORRORS that would be unleashed by hell itself if the persons vote actually counted for one vote. thank god we have a system bases entirely on money for less populated looser states. and hey, maybe there’s reasons thoses places are less populated, cause they are backwoods and racist. god. idiots. **** you don’t realize how many states want out of this retarded way of running things? you know how many states are considering succession because of these types of “fair” voting rules !?! i wouldn’t be suprised if this whole country fell into 50 or more pieces because of people finally understanding how a farmers vote counts for more than a doctors. which pretty much explains how we got our current president…. 😉 welfare votes for states with less people? if the farm states don’t get represented properly, it’s due to the fact that there are less people living there, why should we make their votes count for more? because they won’t get elected who they want? “oh no! deal with it like the MAJORITY of americans have for the last 20 years”…..that’s what i’d say if i could talk to one of those states.

    July 30, 2013 at 11:05 am
  • Jennifer says:

    It happened in 2000.

    July 30, 2013 at 1:03 pm
  • Tigger says:

    This has happened three times: 2000, 1888, and 1876. In 1824, no candidate won a majority of either the popular or electoral votes ane the President was selected by vote in the House of Representatives. All this is in keeping with the Constitution. The framers didn’t want the smaller states to be lorded over by the larger states. Most are aware this is why our Congress is designed the way it is with one house represented by population and the other with all states having an equal vote. The College of Electors is comprised in the same way–each state has as many electors as it has House Representatives and Senators. For example, Oklahoma has 5 Congressmen and 2 Senators, so Oklahoma gets 7 Electoral votes–7 Electors. The people involved, the Electors themselves are chosen by the parties, usually at their conventions, or in the case of Independent candidates who might win Electoral votes, by whatever organization or committee backs that candidate. Electors agree to vote for a particular candidate, however, once the College is seated they are free to vote in whatever way they wish and sometimes don’t vote for the person they said they would, or abstain. When popular votes are cast, the voter is, most accurately stated, actually voting for the Elector that has agreed to vote for that candidate. The Constitution is silent on how the electoral pool from a state relates to the popular vote in that state. Most states use a winner-takes-all approach–a candidate gets all of the states electoral votes if they win the popular vote in that state. Two states, however, Maine and Nebraska have apportionment shemes which means that the electoral votes from those states get divided based on the popular vote outcome. Colorado is (or has been) considering a similar plan. All three plans are different in the way they divide the votes. The winner takes all method has resulted in large states being more important to candidates than smaller states. This, and the possibility of electoral win/popular loss, has lead some to advocate abolishing the Electoral College in favor aof a straight popular vote. They have not considered that, rather than the possibility of winning an electoral victory by winning only 19 states, instead, because of the massive populations in American cities, a popular election oculd be won by only winning in 25-35 cities. Rural areas would be completley ignored and states would become non-entites vis elections.

    July 30, 2013 at 6:10 pm
  • RTO Trainer says:

    There is more Electoral College votes for different states compared to other states. California has the most electoral votes, with 48. 25 billion people can vote in california for democrat, but they still only get 48 votes, while no one can vote for any other state and lose because republican can win every state. It doesnt matter what the popular vote is, it’s the ELECTORAL COLLEGE vote that counts. The college just casts in your votes from the state.

    July 30, 2013 at 7:10 pm

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *