sixtyandaquarter
Member
Here in the states we have the Electoral College. 538 Presidential Electors who vote for and over the Presidency. Technically speaking, each state has their own Presidential Electors, depending on the laws and situations of that state in a state by state manner. On Election Day, the populous who do vote go and declare their ballots, and while the tickers do read the names of the President and Vice President candidates, you are actually voting for the Presidential Electors from your state.
Each state has the same number of Presidential Electors as they do Representatives and Senators in Congress, then an additional 3 for the District of Colombia (which doesn't count as a state but is given as much, by law, Electors as if it had been a state, but no more than the least populous state would have - that being Wyoming with 3, hence why D.C. gets 3). That being the larger and more populated states have the most Presidential Electors, and therefor technically a bigger piece of the Electoral College.
Now, each Elector pledges to vote for someone. When you (we in the US for the rest of the world) vote for the President, as stated, your voting for the Elector who has pledged for said candidate. That is to say, in a perfect world, you just voted for a guy who would vote for the guy you thought you were originally voting for. However 158 different times, an Elector has voted for someone else. In twenty four states laws actually exist to punish these "Faithless Electors", but no one's ever been punished.
Four times in the history of the Electoral College, has a Presidency been won without the "Popular Vote", including Abraham Lincoln.
Each state has the same number of Presidential Electors as they do Representatives and Senators in Congress, then an additional 3 for the District of Colombia (which doesn't count as a state but is given as much, by law, Electors as if it had been a state, but no more than the least populous state would have - that being Wyoming with 3, hence why D.C. gets 3). That being the larger and more populated states have the most Presidential Electors, and therefor technically a bigger piece of the Electoral College.
Now, each Elector pledges to vote for someone. When you (we in the US for the rest of the world) vote for the President, as stated, your voting for the Elector who has pledged for said candidate. That is to say, in a perfect world, you just voted for a guy who would vote for the guy you thought you were originally voting for. However 158 different times, an Elector has voted for someone else. In twenty four states laws actually exist to punish these "Faithless Electors", but no one's ever been punished.
Four times in the history of the Electoral College, has a Presidency been won without the "Popular Vote", including Abraham Lincoln.
The debate is, whether or not the Electoral College should be done away with. The arguments being that it protects the process from overwhelming populations in areas that can be easily swayed by particular candidates (made up example: I get all of NY's votes, and therefore have a one up over the guy from Wyoming). That an opponent could win with a large margin in a few states, as opposed to their opponent who lost with a smaller margin in all the other states. Then again since 2000, we found out that if the 11 largest states vote for a president, that presidential candidate will win.
It can also be argued that a voter - this being people who vote in the "Popular Vote" not the Presidential Elector, will either not vote or vote for a third party candidate in favor of voting for/against a party that is dominant in their region. A voter in a highly Democratic local, if he were Republican, would be more likely to either not vote or vote for a third party, some will argue.
Others argue that your vote doesn't matter. That the popular vote is an informed illusion, one the public has full access to the knowledge of it's tricks and mechanics but still fall prey to and believe every single time. Others, that the system is in need of changing, simply for the "lies" on the ballots - that voting for President So-and-so is actually voting for an Elector who may or may not chose to follow your vote if it wins.
Some believe it keeps the power out of the hands of the common man. Both sides of the debate can see this is as a good or bad thing. If the common man is willing to vote for someone because of what they are - not what they do - some say the Union will decay. That would be voting for/against: Kennedy because he was Catholic, Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, Obama because he is black, etc. While others argue it is elitist and harbors overly conservative traditionalistic tendencies. That because it's been around for so long, doesn't make it right, and it is nothing more than the powerful ensuring they stay powerful.
I went on a very, very, long amount here. Sorry. Really, I'm just here to hear your opinions on the Electoral College. If it should stay, or go. If it needs a quick reboot, a new fresh paint job, what-have-you.
Do we uproot our traditions in the Electoral College for a new system, clean it up, or throw it out? Discuss, damn it discuss, I've babbled on long enough I think I deserve a few answers :p.