Electoral college

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

If the electoral college system in the US gets it wrong sometimes....why can't they change it?  I don't claim to understand it, but it is a system designed to prevent the uneducated masses from deciding the outcome of an election.  Quite paradoxical...but there it is.

Is it relevant anymore?

Any views?

Sriram

[ad_orientem]

It's about weighting states isn't it? Makes sense seeing as the US is a federation.

[Brownie]

I don't understand it either, Sririam, but tend to agree with what you think about it.
SteveH suggested there should be proportional representation.

Yes, if the system is not popular the people should campaign for change.  It's not written in tablets of stone after all (though probably is in the Constitution or something).

[Sriram]

It's about weighting states isn't it? Makes sense seeing as the US is a federation.

Why should their be 'weights' for states?  People voting is all there should be. Even in a large country like India with 1.3 billion population, largely poor and uneducated, we have direct voting for reps (like in the UK). And it works very well!

 

[Sebastian Toe]

Why should their be 'weights' for states?

Because it is the USA?
I think the clue is on the  'S' !

[SqueakyVoice]

Hi everyone,

If the electoral college system in the US gets it wrong sometimes....why can't they change it?

They can. But Americans seem unlikely to do so. Partly out of a needless degree of veneration for The Constitution.

Partly becuase the system either favours the 'winner' (as in this year's election) or makes no difference to the winner.

Most pundits thought that HC had more (and more likely) routes to the White House because of the way the votes were expected to go.

[Hope]

Why should their be 'weights' for states?  People voting is all there should be. Even in a large country like India with 1.3 billion population, largely poor and uneducated, we have direct voting for reps (like in the UK). And it works very well!

But even in India and the UK, we can elect a government without its receiving the majority of the popular vote - as happened in this US case.  Similarly, there are often small parties (eg the Greens and UKIP in the UK) who receive a goodly proportion of the popular vote, but end up with one or two representatives in Parliament.

[Nearly Sane]

But even in India and the UK, we can elect a government without its receiving the majority of the popular vote - as happened in this US case.  Similarly, there are often small parties (eg the Greens and UKIP in the UK) who receive a goodly proportion of the popular vote, but end up with one or two representatives in Parliament.

not quite directly comparable though since the presidential vote, isn't a vote for a govt. Neither really is a vote in an individual constituency but in those if the presidential election had been by fptp then Hillary would have won.

[Brownie]

Too right Hope and there are many in the UK who support the idea of and campaign for proportional representation - which I believe is the system in Norther Ireland.

[Nearly Sane]

Looking as if Clinton might have 2 million more votes than Trump.

[Hope]

Too right Hope and there are many in the UK who support the idea of and campaign for proportional representation - which I believe is the system in Norther Ireland.

And Scotland and Wales in their devolved elections.

[Jack Knave]

Why should their be 'weights' for states?  People voting is all there should be. Even in a large country like India with 1.3 billion population, largely poor and uneducated, we have direct voting for reps (like in the UK). And it works very well!

It's based on population numbers per state. More people living in a state the higher the electoral vote number.

[Nearly Sane]

It's based on population numbers per state. More people living in a state the higher the electoral vote number.

No, it's based on an old number not the actual number. It hasn't been a updated since 2010. Further within that it has a big spread in what is the number of voters per state.

[Jack Knave]

No, it's based on an old number not the actual number. It hasn't been a updated since 2010. Further within that it has a big spread in what is the number of voters per state.

No one said politics was an exact science.

[Nearly Sane]

No one said politics was an exact science.

then don't use words like actual.

[Sriram]

Weightage based on population?  For what?  The people are voting anyway and automatically the states with more population will have more votes....!!!

The original idea was to balance the uneducated factor and allow knowledgeable people to counter the mass votes. I am not sure if any other country has this system.

Hope: How is the system in India and the UK similar to this?  We have direct votes for a party and the leader chosen by the party becomes the PM.

[Harrowby Hall]

Partly becuase the system either favours the 'winner' (as in this year's election) or makes no difference to the winner.

What do you mean by "winner"?  If you mean popular vote, then it clearly has NOT favoured the winner.

I think that Mr Trump should keep quiet about a "rigged election" because it could be argued that the Electoral College was rigged in his favour.

[jeremyp]

the presidential vote, isn't a vote for a govt.

Ignoring the complication of the electoral vote, that is exactly what it is. The people vote for a president which informs their state on which way it should vote and the winner appoints the executive. If you want to argue that the executive is only one third of the government, it still holds because the people vote for the legislature directly and the supreme court is appointed by the president (in theory).

Neither really is a vote in an individual constituency but in those if the presidential election had been by fptp then Hillary would have won.

It was by first past the post in state terms. Clinton would have one on the popular vote.

[jeremyp]

What do you mean by "winner"?  If you mean popular vote, then it clearly has NOT favoured the winner.

The winner is the person who gets elected. The rules say Trump was the winner, so he won.

[jeremyp]

It's based on population numbers per state. More people living in a state the higher the electoral vote number.

Nope.

The number of electoral college votes is based on the number of representatives plus the number of senators that the state has. That means even the smallest state gets three votes in the electoral college.

[Nearly Sane]

Ignoring the complication of the electoral vote, that is exactly what it is. The people vote for a president which informs their state on which way it should vote and the winner appoints the executive. If you want to argue that the executive is only one third of the government, it still holds because the people vote for the legislature directly and the supreme court is appointed by the president (in theory).
It was by first past the post in state terms. Clinton would have one on the popular vote.

Govt is made up of the three prongs. The vote for a President does not appoint the legislature, and part of the reason of staggered elections of the legislature is to avoid the vote being too consistent. And while the President selects the Supreme Court spots, they are both approved by the legislature, and only on the basis of deaths retirement so not a new court

[Sriram]

If the electoral college votes are not in line with the popular votes, they do not accurately represent the peoples views. If they are always in line with the popular votes...they are redundant.

[jeremyp]

The vote for a President does not appoint the legislature,

That's what I said. There are separate votes for the Senate and House.

and part of the reason of staggered elections of the legislature is to avoid the vote being too consistent. And while the President selects the Supreme Court spots, they are both approved by the legislature, and only on the basis of deaths retirement so not a new court

That's what I said.

[jeremyp]

If the electoral college votes are not in line with the popular votes, they do not accurately represent the peoples views. If they are always in line with the popular votes...they are redundant.

Constitutionally, each state tells its representatives in the electoral college how to vote. How it decides what to tell them is up to the state. Most of them look at the vote of the voters within the state and tell all the EC representatives to vote for the candidate chosen by the most voters within the state. Two states cast their EC votes in proportion to the way the voters voted. Provided the EC reps comply with the state's instructions they can claim to accurately represent the people's views (the people being those people within the state).