When a vote doesn't count the same?

[Maedhros]

I have always wondered at the Electoral College System that the US uses for the election of the President and Vice President.
I know that it has several characteristics:
1. Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
2. Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
3. Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
4. The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

What I find intriguing is that while for a person to be elected president, he has to have a majority of "Electoral Votes", and not direct votes of the People. Does this means that in reality the individual votes in total doesn't matter, just only in the state.
For example:
Let's suppose that we have 2 states with the same amount of electoral votes. One party wins one state. Let's say that Party A, won the state by 100,000 votes, while party B won the state by 1000 votes. The difference between the voting by the citizens is 99000 votes for Party A, but in the Electoral College System, it doesn't matter.
So, my point is why aren't peoples votes counted the same? Is it right, or can it be considered discriminatory?

[Rangerdave]

The electoral college is an arcane left over from the 18th century that needs to be removed.

The original intent was to maintain States rights. so that a State with a very minor population like Alaska would have the same political recognition as the larger population States. This way, the person running would have to sway voters in all States, not just the populated ones.

Of course, if we switched to a true democratic vote. A canidate would only have to win New York, Texas and California to win.

The solution will be a sticky one.

RD

[Arvedui]

Sounds like being in the famous place between rocks and hard places to me. But if you dislike your system, consider this:
You do not get to vote for any given person. On election day, you get to choose from a number of political parties (say 13). Every one of those parties is representede with a list of names. But you can't change the names on that list. And also, there is some sort of the same system as in your country. There are more votes behind every Parliament representative form populated areas, than behind those from less populated areas. This is the reality in my country.
To be able to alter the list of named candidates, you have to be a member of that party. So, in reality, it is actually a minority of people who decides who are going to be number 1 and 2 and so on, on that list.
Personally, I would prefer your system, faults though it may have.

[Legolam]

There really isn't a fair way of doing this. In the UK elections, we have a "first past the post" system, where you vote for a candidate in your area (each area has the same population) and that candidate wins a "seat". The first party to get over half the seats in the parliament wins the election.

In Scotland, we have that system, plus there are extra "top-up" seats which are decided by proportional representation ie the party with the most number of votes in an area gets to have a couple more seats. This means that our third party, the Liberal Democrats, usually get a fair slice of the votes but not enough seats, and with top-up seats, they get more seats in parliament. It's probably fairer, but not perfect.

[Maedhros]

Of course, if we switched to a true democratic vote. A canidate would only have to win New York, Texas and California to win.
Isn't an american an american, regardless of where they live in the U.S.?

[Ciryaher]

Those states have the larges populations, and therefore, all you'd have to do is win the states with a large population and you'd when the election.

In 2000, in a breakdown of all the states into counties, almost the entire nation was red for Bush, but the population centers were blue for Gore. Interesting how things work out...

[Rangerdave]

This is why the United States should wake up and finally declare me King.








Still not King

RD

[HLGStrider]

The United States was originally a union of states... Hence, UNITED STATES.

We aren't a democracy, or at least weren't, we're a republic. The difference is subtle. In a democracy the people vote and the votes rule. In a republic the people vote for other people and those people rule representing the whole.

The founders were terrified of centralized government... some of them...

The original parties were federalist and anti-federalist. Federalists wished the central government to have more power than the states and you can guess what the anti-federalists wanted... If I am over simplifying or leaving things out, forgive me, I am going off memory and I have a lousy habit of dropping details.

Anyway, the annoying thing was that some of the states were doing bad things so we had a war and broke the states' powers to rid us of this. There was probably no other way to do it, but it is incredibly sad.

Since then the power has continually shifted from local to federal. That was not the way it was intended.

The electoral college was made to give the states some sway and cripple the federal side of things... the same with the appointment instead of election of senators which was undone with an amendment early last century.

What did I mess up on?

[Maedhros]

Those states have the larges populations, and therefore, all you'd have to do is win the states with a large population and you'd when the election.
So a vote is not a vote then. It matters where you live.
We aren't a democracy, or at least weren't, we're a republic. The difference is subtle. In a democracy the people vote and the votes rule. In a republic the people vote for other people and those people rule representing the whole.
I know it's a republic, but if individual people vote for a certain "person", more than another "person", shouldn't the "person" with more votes win? It's still in accord with being a republic, by your definition.

[Rangerdave]

Originally posted by Maedhros

I know it's a republic, but if individual people vote for a certain "person", more than another "person", shouldn't the "person" with more votes win? It's still in accord with being a republic, by your definition.

Well, this is the quick low down. Each State appoints delegates to the Electoral college (one group for each party). based on population, each State has so many electoral votes.

When the general population votes, all they decide is which group of electors from their State will cast its votes into the National total.

So in actuallality, only a few people from each State vote in a national election. Also, the electors are not legally required to represent the party they were appointed to.

So just for fun, look up how many electoral votes your individual State has, and you will know how many people's votes actually counted in a presidental contest.

It's depressing when you think about it.


RD


ps. Santa has failed me yet again. I am still not King.
the stubble is coming along nicely though

[Maedhros]

So, in other words, you are telling me that the Man on the Moon came down too soon?

[faila]

Its not necesarily a even populr vote of the people, the state theoretically is supposed to have the right to decide how its electors do it. It could technically be done by a single states congress. I personally like the elctoral college, because in a sense it gives ore power to the state governments and less to the federal government.

[HLGStrider]

Another way to give the states more power would be to go back to appointing senators... just for the heck of it.

[Maedhros]

I personally like the elctoral college, because in a sense it gives ore power to the state governments and less to the federal government.
So, individual votes be damned then. I thought that it was people who made the country not states, silly me.

[faila]

Originally posted by Maedhros
So, individual votes be damned then. I thought that it was people who made the country not states, silly me. People make the states. States make the union (which the union is almost an unnecesary oganization any way.)

[HLGStrider]

The idea is it breaks down to the local level...
CA has very different concerns than Alaska which has different concerns than Florida.
The states are one protection against a big federal government. They make sure the interests stay a bit more local. You should be just as proud as being an Oregonian (I am though I hate most of the local political decisions and wish I could alter them) as being an American.
They should be tied together with common ideals of course.

[Gloer]

Maybe the states should sell the electorate to finance their budgets?

Why do you need to separately vote for the president?

Presidency is better sod for the highest bidder.
That is a direct and efficient way to actually get the best material benefit from the federal government to local level.

Federal government in USA has very little power to actually implement any domestic policies compared to the States. States run the domestic policy.

On the otherhand US foreign policy is almost unilaterally led by the White House. States don't have a say and they don't care.
Neither do the voters. This power is heavily based on military force abroad. US presidency is in the core of it mainly government of the foreigner areas and involving non-citizens: subjects of the USA.

Funny how things turn. 1757 americans were the subject of UK with no parliamentary seats, now the british are subjects with no congressional seats. But then: Everyone in 18th century could predict this shift of power would happen.

BTW: I want to vote in US elections.

[HLGStrider]

There's probably the method...
Actually the biggest thing depriving states of power is the Supreme court. It has declared laws "unconstitutional" that the states have a right to implement... some of them were really bad laws, but in reversing them the court over stepped its bounds quite a few times... A bad thing for a good cause... leads to bad things for bad causes.