Talk:United States Electoral College

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

In most states, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot at all; instead, a notation on the ballot indicates that voters are selecting the "electors for" followed by the names of the candidates for office. In all but two states, the party that wins the most popular votes selects that state's electors, essentially a winner-take-all.

What Two States are we talking about in the paragraph above??? Someone who knows please put that in there.

We said, "The House had to vote thirty-five times before Alexander Hamilton declared his support for Thomas Jefferson..." Anyone know why the house had to vote 35 times? --PSzalapski 16:54, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've not looked very closely (not a subject that interests me), but it seems that Electoral college already covers most of this and what will be here in the future. --Camembert

Fixed. Electoral college is now a redirect. -- Gregory Pietsch

Are there non-US "electoral college"s to be disambiguated against? Should both words be capitalized or not? --Brion 18:27 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

I don't know if any other country uses this system of voting. If there is such a country, let me know. -- Gregory Pietsch

Not knowing of one, I'd suggest moving the article back to the original location at Electoral college. --Brion

Although I do not know if there are any other functioning electoral colleges, the idea is not entirely unique to the US -- I believe that Napolean instituted, or proposed to institute, something similar in function when he first took power. (needless to say the institution, if it was ever implemented, was very short-lived!) Slrubenstein

The point about the 10 largest cities being the swing in a large election, was changed to the 10 largest states, this is a mistake. I think it should be returned. The entire point about majority rule is that large population centers (not states, but the cities themselves) can exert a tyranny over the smallest states. Where I live, the population of New York City is more than twice as large as my entire state - making this a very real worry.

Yeah, but New York City doesn't get an electoral vote. Electoral votes go to states, not cities. Of course it is also true that nowadays states with large electoral votes tend to have large cities, but back when the system was created in the 18th century there were no metropolises of the size we know today, and almost all states were mostly rural. The focus of the system is on states, not cities per se. soulpatch

I know NYC doesn't get electoral votes, that's the point - the difference between the college and a direct election where a strict majority (or usually) a plurality rules. I don't want that because the cities will always out vote me and my rural compatriots. Dobbs 18:34 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

I wasn't wasn't trying to debate the merits of the Electoral College in this case (although I have to admit it seems bizarre to me to argue that rule by minority is preferable because the majority might vote on something you don't like--to which I say, duh! That's the way majority rule always works!). But that's not the point I was making. I was simply stating that the Electoral College was invented at a time when almost everyone was a rural voter, so it wasn't even designed around the issue of cities versus countryside; it is totally focused on states, not cities. If you have two states with identical, mostly rural population densities, but one is 10 times the size of the other, then the voters in the smaller one get more say proportionally on the election outcomes than the other one. That is how the electoral college functions. It may or may not correlate with the urban population of respective states. But it most certainly doesn't have to. soulpatch

I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but really. THE POINT IS THIS. 1) GORE DIDN'T WIN A MAJORITY, he won a PLURALITY. 2) AND AS SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS THE COLLEGE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT BEING PREFERABLE TO BE RULED BY A MINORITY.

Yes you do. You are opposed to majority rule. You say as much below., where you specifically argue against majority rule, when you complain that the majority will vote in ways you don't like. You said, " If, as the detractors of the college argue, we should go to a strict majority rule for the election - the voters in the 10 largest cities could forever and ever outvote the Western United States (excepting the coastal cities of California - exactly my point)." In other words, you are opposed to majority rule. So instead, you want the minority of voters in the rural areas to have the right to select who the President is. What the alternative to giving the majority the right to select the President? Well, duh--the alternative is giving the MINORITY the right to choose the President. It's called democracy. I'm sorry that you detest majority rule, but those of us who think that it is preferable to minority rule feel differently. soulpatch

Yes, I am opposed to democracy. DEMOCRACY IS EVIL INCARNATE. Democracy is mob rule. If everyone votes to execute redheads (a sure minority) then democracy gives them the RIGHT to do so. This is why the founders were against majority rule. We live in a representative Republic - NOT A DEMOCRACY! The representative Republic we live in provides for control of the majority, proportional representation AND state by state representation - in order not to have the tyranny of the large over the small. This is the reason for the college. Yes, it is certainly anti-democratic, and thank god for that.

Oh give me a break. The alternative to having the majority select the winner of an election is having the minority select it. The key word that appears repeated in what you just wrote is "representation" -- that means that the winners of an election "represent" the majority of voters. Anything else represents tyranny of the minority. SOMEBODY has to choose the winner of an election--the question is who will select it--the majority, or a minority? I favor the majority giving the right to choose who governs them. You don't. It's as simple as that. soulpatch

That assumption that all non-Majority Elections are Minority Elections is wrong. The Electoral system is a Representative Election - as stated above. It is not only possible, but very common for a Representative Election to have the same outcome as a Majority Election. It is also possible, but far less common, for a Representative Election to have the same outcome as a Minority Election. It is also important to point out that when the US Constitution was written, there were large cities with populations that exceeded that of the rural areas. It is also important to point out that those allowed to vote were highly concentrated in the cities as most of the rural workers were not allowed to vote. So, there was some degree of urban/rural conflict in the very beginning. Kainaw 18:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To state that because I am for protecting the rights of the small is to say I would not prefer there to be broad concensus in this country on the choice of leader (especially in times of crisis), is completely wrong. But if a person has a majority in this country - it is very difficult to lose the presidential vote anyway. And if someone loses in this fashion (not as in the 2000 election where no one received a majority), the result is so close, that it is difficult for anyone to say that a mandate was granted or denied to anyone - winner or loser. Given that the result would be so tight, I would take the guy who was supported throughout the land - not the regional or metropolitian winner. Dobbs 05:30 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

To claim that a person who minority support of the electorate has "broad" support is use such an absurd definition of the word "broad" as to be meaningless. What you advocate is, in the absense of a landslide (which is rare in presidential elections), giving automatic precedence to rural voters over urban voters. It really isn't difficult to decide who has a mandate when there is a majority vote--it's the person with the majority! This attempt to give certain classes of voters more precedence than others is just plain absurd. Why stop a presidential elections? You could do the same thing for Senators and representatives--have rural counties more of a say than urban counties. But maybe you DO support such a system. If so, bully for you. But let's at least try to make this article objective rather than just a bully pulpit for th electoral college, which is initially was. soulpatch

Senators and Representatives have EXACTLY the same idea going for them. Representatives are proportioned by number of voters, giving large states (with the majority of people) a larger number of votes. Realizing that, in this way, Rhode Island would be forever outvoted by Virginia, this was an unworkable plan. Therefore, the Senate was created with 2 Senators per State. This allowed things that individual governments should agree to (such as declaring war, or sitting in judgement of the President) to the Senate, with all States created equal. But in matters of popular concern (if the President should be impeached at all) the House with the majority well represented get the ability. The same holds for the election of the President via the electoral college. Strict majority rule would keep Rhode Island from having a say in the executive.

The attacks on me for not providing an objective article is misplaced. I think this sort of system, for contentious topics is *MUCH* better than having myself, or yourself write the entire article (for example) and characterize the opposition. I provide positive reasons for the college as a way to balance regional voting blocks viz a viz the overall spread of people across the country. The detractors side states its arguments as mischaracterizations of what supporters believe - not positive reasons why majority rule is more fair to people and the political process in the country as a whole. THAT seems biased to me. But at least that side was written by a supporter - if that's how you feel the argument should be framed - then good for you. But if I started writing "Detractors of the college feel that majority rule by cities to ensure the health of urban centers by aggregation of political power to be preferable to power sharing with rural voters, much as in Communist China today. Supporters of the College find that is nothing more than laying the groundwork for a future mountain, rural, and agrarian revolution against the urban centers. Just as in Communist China today." you would be justifiably pissed.

So, how about this. I write your side, you write mine - and we see how it comes out. It might take some of the vitriol out of this debate. The old idea of you divide, I pick? <GRIN> I want the article to be good, balanced, and NPOV - really - I PROMISE.

Sorry for the screaming, but my points made as a SUPPORTER of the college are constantly being misrepresented by detractors of the college and that is not fair to the goal of the NPOV. Majority rule - OR PLURALITY RULE AS WAS THE CASE IN THE 2000 ELECTION - is my point. IT IS THE 10 LARGEST CITIES. If, as the detractors of the college argue, we should go to a strict majority rule for the election - the voters in the 10 largest cities could forever and ever outvote the Western United States (excepting the coastal cities of California - exactly my point). The idea of rural vs. cities wasn't on their mind when they wrote it, but it is exactly the same idea as small states being forever outvoted by larger states. They wished to place the same balance that provided proportionality in the House with equality with in the Senate. Dobbs 03:38 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

No, it isn't exactly the same. You are using an article about cities versus towns that has nothing to do the reasons behind the founding of the article. The college is a relic from a bygone era. As as for NPOV, now you have managed to add huge amounts of pro-electoral college arguments into this article, so that it is totally tilted in favor of the system, and you complain about NPOV? Give me a break. Thanks to your changes, there are now five pro-electoral college paragraphs, and just one against. So much for NPOV. soulpatch

Please add additional arguments that illustrate why direct election is better. Because you are for a plurality winner in votes as opposed to a majority winner in the other ways? OK, but it is difficult for me to do so, as I cannot logically support that in any other way than what has already been said - detractors think it is outdated and undemocratic. I was willing to provide a specific example, which adds to Wiki and (hopefully) increases understanding by making issues relate to the real world. Dobbs 05:10 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

No, I am no for a plurality winner. Once again, you draw conclusions without having anything to back it up. I am completely opposed to giving the election to a plurality winner--I believe that majority vote should determine the winner-either through runoff elections, or better still instant runoff voting. soulpatch

As a resident of one of those ten largest cities that you're trying to disenfranchise, naturally I don't agree that a balance of everyone else's votes is preferable. But, to each his own. ;) --Brion 03:43 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

You're not being disenfranchised at all. Candidates will always come to the cities to campaign and try to win. What do they say when they campaign? That they will address your concerns. No one will EVER address my concerns again (as a Presidential candidate) if we have direct election. Traveling over, what about 30% of the countries land mass for < 6% of the votes? Nope, sorry, I'm irrelevant. How can you say that addressing my concerns disenfranchises you in any way? I can see how it would screw me, but you? Look at the bottom of the page. Gore certainly did not get a majority of votes. And Bush received a majority of every other way you could cut it. This disenfranchises you how? You were competed for like crazy. You were promised things. But in a direct election I would have nothing to give. And Gore would get another 2% or so and magically have more legitmacy? That's strikes me as a perfect prescription to divide the country, and create regional parties looking out for their stuff only. And we know how well that works out in other regions of the world, don't we? Yep - Afghanistan run by Pashtuns or Tajiks for the last 20 years, screwing the other guy when they ever got into power. No thanks. Everyone feeling like they are part of the greater whole? Anytime. Dobbs 05:01 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

That's right, let it all out, you'll feel better. (pat pat) --Brion 05:19 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

I might add that the system was also invented when people were less mobile than they are today, and tended to have more of an identity as a citizen of a state. I have lived, in my life, in many states, both big states and in small ones. I vote the same basic way pretty much wherever I live, yet simply by virtue of moving to a certain state I magically and inexplicitly get more or less a proportional say in a Presidential election. I haven't changed much in those situations, my votes haven't really changed, yet the Electoral Collge somehow assumes that when I pack up my belongings and move to another state I somehow will change what I consider my interests to be and vote differently. This is all nonsense, of course, but this is what happens when you take a convoluted 18th century voting mechanism and try to apply it to the 21st. soulpatch

I am a Coloradan more than I am a U.S. citizen in many more real ways that effect my day to day life. You are not concerned with local issues, because you travel and do not stay around long enough to be concerned with what are temporary benefits or inconviences of the system you have to live under. But when people like you (permament travelers), combined with people - say in Los Angeles or New York City - in a direct election can come up with ideas that don't work where I live (and hope to return to after my temporary travels), too bad for me. It is not all nonsense. California is attempting to turn the southern half of my state into a desert by taking all of my Colorado river water. I'm certain that those city living people who only see pictures of my beloved Rocky Mountains don't really give a damn about that, but MY INTERESTS are certainly based on where I live. And detractors of the college making assumptions about why I feel these ways and changing supporters edits does not improve the goal toward a NPOV. OK, got the bile out. I'll be better behaved from now on. Dobbs 03:38 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

Your assertion that I am not concerned with local issues is false. Your claim that I "travel and do not stay around" is also false. You don't know me, so you are making personal statements about me based on no knowledge whatsoever. I have lived in my current area for nine years. I am deeply concerned with local issues. I am also not a NIMBY voter. My interests are the best interests of the nation and the planet, not simply whatever concerns my own backyard. Because I am not a NIMBY voter, I actually think you raise a valid point about Colorado water, even though I am a Californian.

"I have lived, in my life, in many states, both big states and in small ones. ... I haven't changed much in those situations, my votes haven't really changed ... when I pack up my belongings and move to another state I somehow will change what I consider my interests to be and vote differently." You stated it. I made personal statements about you based on the knowledge you provided me. I feel my inference about your not being concerned in response to local conditions to be well supported by your own statements - don't get mad at me for drawing those conclusions based on what's above.

I can understand your confusion--you apparently equate "local interest" voting with NIMBY voting, and you assume that everyone takes this same narrow view of what is right. But some of us actually concern ourselves with what the right and just thing is for everyone when we are involved in local politics. soulpatch

Just another point: When the system was instituted, popular vote was not even mandatory, read your constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

There is no reference to the popular voters, it is all in the hands of the state legislature.--AN

On the title of the page. Upon looking for other systems that used the Electoral College system, I found there weren't any. I vote (<GRIN>) to return it to Electoral College - that's how people are going to look it up anyway. Dobbs 17:57 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

I found that the spanish expression Colegio Electoral that would translated as Electoral College is used in some spanish speaking countries to designate the citizens in charge of a voting site. I don't know if somebody is going to write an article about it, and what should be the title if it were, but I point it out just that you know.--AN

"Opponents also point out that the electoral college assumes that voters within states vote monolithically, when in fact this is not the case. Many states are often deeeply decided over how to vote in a Presidential election."

Nope. It works like this. The assumption is, is that large blocks of people are Democratic or Republican and they will vote along party lines no matter what. From what I've read about 60% of people are strongly affilated. This has been true since the parties crystalized over the last century - but that still leaves 40% who aren't. The battle is for the swing voters. So you go after the swing voters. Where are the largest number of these people? Cities. Since they have no party affilation, they respond to what the candidate can do for them. Take the appeal of Regan and the "Regan Democrats" - swing voters who normally can be counted on to vote Democratic, but decided not to. It would be easy for a candidate to take all the money normally spent on flying around, massive TV advertising, and geographic political palpability and instead concentrate on the large cities. Anyone who would mount a national campaign against someone pursuing this strategy would be committing suicide. You would see a cycle where everyone keeps placing more and more $$$ into the cities, restricting the process to these areas. Take a look at this article [1], to see that, even more than 100 years ago, regions against one another was going strong. And cities nowadays certainly are regions with their own political motivations.Dobbs 05:50 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

Of course it is true that voters do not vote monolithically. That is the whole point. But all the arguments you have been making are are assuming that voters vote monolithically, since you claim that people in states only vote for what is in the local interests of the state. You have repeatedly made this point, over and over again. I'm glad to see that you now reject this argument, although it of course removes the main argument you have been using in favor of the electoral college. soulpatch

Ok, without me getting excited. <WINK> Here are my overall reasons for being so fearful about majority vote, and why I think as a voter in a small state I will be disenfranchised. The argument does not weigh in on majority takes all in the state (as it is now) - thus providing an artificial monolithic voting block where none exists. The real issue is how the political system would change (I think for the worse) if it was instituted. Since we both basically agree that 60% of people are affiliated, each major party has that 30% of the vote locked up - no point in preaching to the choir, as it were. So the vote moves to the swing voters. Well, again, all 40% of those swing voters aren't going to vote all the same way, not even close. Realistically, their votes will come down to close to 50 / 50 if no one really campaigns to them. Since who is going to win in that area (since it is a strict majority, no sense talking about the state anymore) will be determined by a small proportion of swing voters located throughout a very large area, it is counterproductive for a campaign to spend time looking for those few hearts and minds - they really don't matter anyway. At most those small number of votes overall will make very little difference. Campaigns will spend time in cities and their associated metropolitan areas. Winning a 48 / 52% vote in New York city proper - or The Northeast overall, would easily overwhelm any 40 / 60 winner (our worst, and impossible case) in the West. So why bother ever campaigning in the mountain west at all? The short answer is, neither side would. It would be pointless - and that is my concern. You may well be right about getting a small majority of votes being "more fair" (in the metaphysical sense) than minority rule, I'd even be willing to concede that to you if it will move the debate forward. But the corrosive effects to national unity would far outweigh giving the election to a plurality winner. People are apathetic as it is. The Presidential election is the one that people most identify with (that's why we are so excited, after all). Taking the ability to influence the election by having the candidates campaign to us and our concerns away, will stop most people for voting - about anything (since all that voting is done at once). Then, you get something close to a collapse in the democratic process that underpins the republic. You think people are suspicious of the Federal government now (the fringe Ruby Ridge and Waco people ARE a fringe, but more moderate justifiably paranoid people exist) just have the Presidential candidates start ignoring Idaho completely.

Yes I may be overstating it for now, but 20 years under that sort of system would destroy what faith many in these parts of the country have in the basic idea of a federal government. These same concerns lead to the first civil war. Now, I don't think there is going to be a civil war anytime soon. But, if serious economic concerns (like the lifeblood of the West, water) are run roughshod over by the government, and no one here thinks that they are getting a fair shake, or even being listened to - then you are shaping up events to come to a head just like the south. National unity by providing a balance between regional concerns and preventing regionalism from dictating the national executive is more important than belief in majority rule. Now, can you at least see that I'm not crazy, overreacting, or PREFER minority rule?

And finally, if you believe in majority rule, start proportioning state representatives solely on the basis of majority vote over the whole state. Work that through in a thought experiment what that would do to politics. It is the same argument I make about the College. Northern California would lose their cool if the large cities took over the state government, that's why it is seperated into districts, each with the same vote. That amplifies the Northern California vote, why allow it at all? And this divide is real. As a resident User:soulpatch of California you know what I'm talking about. Dobbs 15:28 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

First of all, in a democratic election where majority vote determines the winner, where each voter is equal, then every single vote--every single "heart and mind"--matters. And I might add that in this era of television, where the vast majority of campaign money goes towards TV advertising, the entire electorate can and is blanketed by each of the major party campaigns. By the way, it is interesting that you are talking about the Mountain West as a rural entity, when in fact the state of Colorado where you live has the overwhelming majority of its population living along the highly urbanized Front Range. Your whole conception of regional identity as being one of rural versus urban is ridiculously simplistic. State boundaries don't correspond to the type of scheme you are trying to defend.

As for California, the fact is that in the gubernatorial election, the big cities already do have the biggest say in who wins the governor's race. That's true in every state already, because states directly elect their governors. I accept that Southern Californians have a bigger say than I do in Northern California because I accept the principle of majority vote in the governor's race. Your analogy with distict elections raises an interesting point--namely, that the legislative branch is designed precisely to give regions a say in the legislative branch. But the analogy is flawed. First of all, legislative elections implement the principle of one-man, one-vote, which is the very principle that you oppose (since you endorse giving people in certain states more of a vote for President than those in others, based on a supposed "rural" versus "urban" identity of those states). There is only one President, and that person has to be chosen somehow. There are many legislators, and the whole point of having many legislators is that they each represent a smaller constituency.

I favor making minority viewpoints available to the electoral process, but it should be in the context of a democratic mechanism that reflects the will of all the people and which does not give some individuals greater say in choosing their legislators than others. That is why I advocate making elections more democratic, not less--that means instant runoff elections, for example, which makes sure that minority viewpoints are included. Included does not mean controls, however--the will of the majority is ultimately what should determine election results, not the will of a priviliged minority. (The legislative body is in fact a way of implementing regional representation within the government, which you favor, as do I. Of course, if you really want to make sure everyone is enfranchised in the legislature, then you should favor proportional representation, as almost all European governments have.) More importantly, there is only one executive, but many legislators. The question we come back to, again and again, is how we should elect both those legislators and the executive--by majority vote, or by a convoluted mechanism that gives some privileged minorities more of a say than others in how the single executive who governs the country is chosen.

And on the question is how we should elect the people who represent us, Irepeat my question of whether you favor giving rural counties more of a vote than urban counties in a gubernatorial election.

And by the way, this whole rural versus urban thing is absurd for another reason. Making rural minorites privileged while ignoring other minorities of voters seems a little bizare. The electorate can be divided and sliced into many categories, not just urban versus rural. The fact is that lots of electoral minorities exist out there. If you oppose majority vote because minorities will be ignored, then perhaps we should give African Americans, gays,and the poorest citizens, a host of other groups of people a higher proportion of the vote to make up for the fact that politicians tend to ignore these smaller minorities, especially if they are unlikely to vote. The whole premise of giving rural voters the ultimate control over who wins elections is just plain absurd. soulpatch

If anything, this is an argument that electoral college district lines should be drawn up separately from the state boundaries, since regional concerns are much more distinctly different across rural vs city divides. Of course, that would erode states' rights. Oh, wait, those haven't really existed since 1865. ;) --Brion 06:13 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

Deleted the irrelevant bullet point on land mass. Actually, the number of counties is also irrelevant, as AFAIK counties have no meaningful status in any state's federal electoral process. However, counties are at least political entities. Land mass is not, at least not until dirt gets the right to vote. k.lee

Minesweeper toned down my contributed section about the stranglehold of the two political parties over U.S. politics (stranglehold changed to domination), and I just wanted to say, I think it was a good choice to do so :) -Perry

This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither has ever split its electoral votes.

I seem to recall that Maine did split in 2000; I don't recall, swadly, and I suspect a Google for a 2000 electoral vote map would overwhelm me. --Charles A. L. 21:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Charles, you silly goose. The answer is right under your nose! Click on the last link of the first paragraph of this article....where it says election maps. :) Kingturtle 21:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. You'd never know I've been literate for 23 years or so.... --Charles A. L. 23:59, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

On the topic of electoral maps, would it be possible to change the maps in U.S. presidential election, 1996 et al so that the Democratic candidate gets blue states? Every other election map uses this color scheme, and to not do so is damn confusing. I'd do it myself, but how? Yours, Meelar 21:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am unsure that I understand your question. All the U.S. presidential election maps have the Democratic party as Red. When you say "every other election map"....what are you referring to? Kingturtle 21:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Conventional usage on TV news, newspapers, magazines, etc. is to shade Democratic states blue--so much so that "Blue states" and "red states" have passed into common political parlance to signify the divided state of the US following the 2000 election. Meelar 21:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - I believe User:Hephaestos made all the Electoral College maps in Wikipedia. Ask him about it. It might be easy for him to change. He probably still has the original files. Or he can tell you why he chose the color scheme we have. Kingturtle 21:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - Done. Thanks very much, Meelar

This view of Electoral College supporters continue to be slowly defaced in this article. The overall tone of the article is that the Electoral College is a racist hateful system that only evil people would support. Why not just go ahead and say this outright rather than insinuating it oh so subtly.

I don't think the addition goes quite that far, but in any case it was dropped in by someone who's recently been making a bunch of POV additions -- see Richard Nixon, for example. --Charles A. L. 02:51, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the first change (the phrasing was awkward but is better now). The second change (the one implying inherent racism) is rather POV, and I can't find anything credible to back it up; the third change just complicates an already convoluted paragraph. Reverting the second change, and going to attempt to tidy up the third one (though I'm still not happy with that paragraph). - Jim Redmond 06:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: the second change...it was not implying racism. The term minority vote, in this case, refers to the group of voters whose vote totals are in the minority. Kingturtle

I think we're looking at different things here. (In retrospect, I shouldn't have described the anonymous user's changes that way. Too late now, though.) The anon-user changed the lead paragraph in the "A controversial system" section to imply that only conservatives supported the E.C., and then only because it overrepresented the votes of rural whites. I couldn't find anything through a quick Google to back up either of those assertions, so I reverted that paragraph to Skyshadow's earlier version. - Jim Redmond 18:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The United States is one of very few liberal democracies to use an indirect method of selecting its chief executive.

Is this true? In a British-style parliamentary system, isn't the prime minister elected indirectly? Can't a party that gets fewer votes than another wind up with a majority of seats in the parliament, and hence elect the PM? Josh Cherry 03:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Technically, yes, a member of a non-plurality party can become PM; in practice, though, it doesn't happen often. It's rather complicated for quick discussion here; Westminster system should cover most of it. - jredmond 04:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I read Westminster system, but it didn't set me straight. Suppose there are just two parties, A and B. A gets the majority of votes, yet B wins the majority of seats. Who becomes PM? I presume it's the leader of party B. Is this incorrect? If not, how is this fundamentally different from a U.S. presidential candidate losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college? Josh Cherry 04:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In that fundamental way, it's no different. Indeed just like the US system, there have been times when the party winning less votes has had more seats in the House of Commons. It happened in the 1950s when Labour won more votes, but the Conservatives more seats for example. David Newton 17:24, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, mean to direct you to presidential system - strangely, it has a good explanation of the distinctions between the two models of republican government. (I smell a better article coming out of this.)

The PM must have majority support from the Parliament at all times. Through a vote of no confidence or through a shift in the makeup of the ruling coalition, a PM can lose his or her position.

A president chosen by direct or indirect election cannot be removed just because the legislature, Electoral College, or electorate as a whole have stopped liking him or her.

Does that answer your question? - jredmond 05:42, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't respond to my point. I understand that there are differences between the systems. What I am questioning is whether the prime minister in such a system is directly elected. People don't vote for the PM, they vote for a member of Parliament. A majority of voters might favor the leader of party A for PM, yet party B might win the most seats in Parliament, and hence the leader of party B would become PM. The fact that MPs continue to exercise discretion about the PM's continuing in office does not make the election of the PM any more direct. In fact it could be argued that it makes it less direct, much as if the members of the Electoral College could take a new vote at any time and oust the president. Josh Cherry 14:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, was misinterpreting your question.

Voters in most parliamentary systems do not vote for a particular MP for their particular riding - they vote for a party, that party receives seats in Parliament based on its proportion of the vote, etc. Because those voters know that any party leader will become PM if their party gets enough clout, and because party loyalty is fierce in parliamentary systems, it can be argued that electing a Prime Minister is more direct than using an Electoral College. - jredmond 16:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I buy that in a parliamentary system with proportional representation the election of the PM is more direct than the election of a U.S. president. But I think you see my point that in a parliamentary system without PR, e.g. with first-past-the-post voting, the election of the PM is just as indirect. So are the latter really so rare? According to the article on PR, In general, first-past-the-post is only used in former British colonies, and even Britain itself uses PR for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies and for its EU delegation. This seems to suggest that the British Parliament uses first-past-the-post, along with some others. The article on Westminster Parliament confirms this for Britain, and Canadian House of Commons says that in Canada it's one MP per constituency by fist-past-the-post. Australia seems to elect one MP per constituency too, just not by first-past-the-post. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how these systems work, but if not, the few liberal democracies claim is tenuous. Josh Cherry 00:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With respect, given the large number of democracies that use the Westminster System, I'm not certain the United States is all that unique in using an indirect method of electing its head of government. Also, I would submit that its use of an indirect method for electing its head of state is also not unusual for republics. Examples include Germany and India. Ed Unneland 01:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My two cents worth... Deciding whether or not an election is a direct or indirect election has nothing to do with non-plurality winners -- simply, a direct election is one in which a voter votes directly for the candidate, not for some intermediary, whatever the name. otherwise what you got is inherently an indirect election. So, based on that, it seems that relatively few (liberal) democracies directly elect their executives: France, Russia, Finland, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, to name a few... and even in the case of France, the President, although very powerful, is not the head of government -- the prime minister, who is appointed by the president, is the head of government. In any event, it seems that the majority of European, North American, and Asian (liberal) democracies chose their executive through indirect elections, generally through (1) parliamentary-type elections (leader of winning party becomes head of government, such as in Britain, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, New Zealand); (2) by electing someone else (say, a president) who chooses the head of government(such as in Israel, Czech Republic, Bangladesh, Iceland, Austria); or (3) through some other system (electoral college, for example, in US, Italy, India, Germany). The point is that the sentence in question -- The United States is one of very few liberal democracies to use an indirect method of selecting its chief executive. -- is not accurate and should be removed. I assume that no one is against this, right? Fufthmin 20:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yet another problem with the electoral college is what would result if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes...

How is this a problem with the electoral college in particular? With a simple popular vote, it is also possible for no candidate to receive a majority. In fact it's much more likely to happen with a popular vote. In the last three U.S. Presidential elections no candidate had a majority of the popular vote, yet in all cases somebody had a majority in the electoral vote. Josh Cherry 23:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But I mention that if no one wins a majority in the electoral college, there is no winner at all. In a direct first-past-the-post election, at least the person with a plurality could become president, governor, etc.

(In many countries, France being an example, if no one wins an outright majority, there is a runoff) User:Dinopup

My point is that what to do when nobody gets a majority is always an issue (one with no good solution in fact) and has nothing to do with the popular vote vs. electoral college question, so it doesn't belong here. Josh Cherry 03:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Changing the system [to a direct popular vote] requires amending the Constitution, and amending the Constitution requires ratification of three-fourths of the States. Smaller states would be unlikely to ratify such an amendment, as their votes would count for less under direct popular vote than under the current electoral college system."

That statement is just factually incorrect. Consider that the eleven largest states control outright the requisite 270 electoral votes to determine the presidency. If each of those eleven large states changed their election laws to choose their electors based upon the winner of the national popular vote rather than their own state vote, then we would have achieved the equivalent of direct election of the president without amending the constitution and without the consent of a single small state.

Not even all eleven large states would be required to produce a popular vote winner in some cases. In 2000, had only one Bush state chosen its electors by national popular vote rather than state popular vote, the popular vote winner would have been elected.

My point is not to debate the political probability of this happening, only to point out that a constitutional amendment really is not required to achieve a direct popular vote (though that is a very widely accepted view). --Pgva 19:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given that a user saw fit to delete the paragraph on this topic, calling it an "unrealistic" proposal, a word in its defense is in order. The conventional wisdom is that achieving a popular vote through a constitutional amendment is unlikely because the small states would never go along; yet we proceed here to list a number of proposals for constitutional amendment anyway. Well, there exists a way to achieve a popular vote that requires no constitutional amendment and no small state consent, and would be in the interest of the large states to enact. Why this is, therefore, viewed as any less realistic a solution is beyond me, unless we consider ourselves forever bound by our own conventions and lack of imagination. Certainly it deserves at least as much of a mention here as such terribly unlikely proposals as French-style runoff voting. Pgva 11:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous user added: "However the clause of the U.S. constitution that forbids treaties between individual states makes such an agreement difficult in practice." But a state need not sign a treaty with another state to tabulate the national popular vote. A treaty is a mutual commitment among parties. A commitment neither is required nor results from simply taking account of and using another state's vote totals. Of course there is no guarantee that every state publish its vote totals for other states' use (indeed, the lack of such a guarantee proves that no interstate pact would exist), but any state which chose not to make its vote total public would simply disenfranchise itself under this system. That is the common-sense view; Anonymous user has another view, but it is a point-of-view and thus does not belong in the article. I will give others an opportunity to debate the issue before making an official correction of the sentence in question. Pgva 22:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pgva, long time, no see. An idea even simpler than your eleven states proposal would be for the two major party candidates to simply agree that the winner of the popular vote will become president. The candidates could promise that if there were a pop vote/e college mismatch, the e vote winner would urge his electors to vote for his opponent (and electors would be chosen who would do so). Since this idea would require the agreement of two parties, rather than eleven, I would say it is more feasible.

You point out that a Constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college is unlikely to pass, but at least such an amendment is on the table. Many high profile politicians, journalists, and academics want to do away with the e college, a few even want French style runoffs (or IRV). AFAIK, no high profile politician favors the eleven state method. dinopup

Hi, Dinopup. Our proposals are the same fundamentally: no constitutional amendment, and a sufficient number of electors back the national popular vote winner. Yet unless such an arrangement was enacted as a matter of law (as opposed to a "gentleman's agreement"), freelancing electors could very easily throw the outcome into doubt. In fact, they would have numerous incentives to do so, including that current law in many states renders electors who fail to support their party's candidates liable to criminal prosecution. Better to take the electors' will out of the equation (more or less) by appointing the electors loyal to the national winner in the first place. As you point out, no politician has ever favored the "state law solution". But then, few people have thought it through enough to even realize that it's possible (one of the reasons I thought it worthy of mention here) - the conventional wisdom is that a constitutional amendment is required. I will say that no change is likely unless the system implodes, in which case Congress would likely take a leading role, and in that event I would put odds on a constitutional amendment. It's more for the principled advocates of "one man, one vote" that I thought the "state law solution" a potentially useful idea. Pgva 04:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of electors

The list of electors at the end of the article is currently hard-coded as a multicolumn table. It should really be a straight list, but I agree that that wouldn't be good use of screen real estate. Then again, I don't think thats a big issue, and to have it correctly marked up and looking good in many forms (small screen, printed, etc.) we should not have it split with a table. (and anyway, long lists with mostly short items can be shown nicely in CSS3 in the future.)

Comments? Luke 02:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The United States is one of very few liberal democracies to use an indirect method of selecting its chief executive (the UK being the other notable example).

How about Canada and Australia? Josh Cherry 03:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good Work

I see why this article is selected to be featured, it is of excellent quality. Good work everyone! ( Feel free to choose to delete my comments afterwards so they don't get in the way :) )--ShaunMacPherson 13:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The United States

In this article, The United States of America is always reffered to as The United States, and seeming as how there are more than one country in the world beginning with The United States (i.e. of Mexico), I feel that America should be added to all of these. Perhaps I am being overly nitpicky, but it is language like this that promotes American imperialism and superiority little by little. It is a very small example of imperialism through language, but just the assumption that The United States always reffers to America denotes some kind of superiority over other United States. I am new with Wikipedia, and I am not familiar with the strictness of language (this is an encyclopedia after all; I hope it is trying to eliminate the use racist/sexist/imperialist language) so I have not made these changes myself, but would like to see them made. thanks

Well I'm not an American, but, ipso facto when somebody speaks of the United States, he means the USA. There is no imperialism, just language custom. (sorry for my English, it's not my first language)

what you say might make sense in languages other than english, but the thing is... in english, the united states only refers to the united states of america. or to put it a different way, mexico is called, strikinly enough, mexico, and not the united states of mexico, although that might be its proper name. (see what i mean, i didn't need to write the united states of mexico for you to understand me, i only needed to write mexico...) Fufthmin

If an election is thrown into the House...

Hello,

"If no person wins a majority of electoral votes for President, the House of Representatives (the one elected at the same time as the vote for President, not the old one) then votes to decide who shall become the next President from among the top three candidates. In so voting, the representatives of each state cast a single block vote, and all state votes count equally, independent of the population of the states."

Question: How would that actually work? It's easy enough for Wyoming, but what about states with more than one rep? Do all reps from a certain state have to agree, or is it the majority of the reps from one state that would determine that state's vote? And would it have to be the absolute majority, or just the relative majority? What if there was a tie among the reps from one state? -- 84.57.2.21 22:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's based on the majority of the reps prevailing - in 2000 I recall commentators predicting that if there was no majority (if for instance Florida did not send electors in time) then it might go to the House where the Republicans controlled the majority of delegations. No idea on a tie, though that may explain the 36 ballots in 1800 (although doesn't it also need a weighted majority?).

I agree it's messy - it's clear that they were trying to reproduce the "equal votes for each state" & "votes based on population" combination for Congress, but had to put the House with the former option as the electors had taken the latter. Yet another support for the "this was never properly thought through" school of historians! Timrollpickering 22:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Minimum threshold to win?

In theory a candidate could win the election by receiving only 23% of all popular votes, if these were distributed in an ideal way (if the states were sorted by rising number of population he or she would have to gain the electoral votes in all states in the range from Wyoming to Virginia by 50%+1 of all votes including the exception of Maine and Nebraska were nearly all votes would be necessary).

I see the point being explained, but aren't all the states done on the basis of a plurality not a majority? So if there were four candidates in each state, each polling 25% of the vote, and the same candidate was ahead (perhaps by as little as 1 vote more than each of the others) in sufficient states, would that not drastically reduce the total votes needed to win? Timrollpickering 13:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a real good consideration, I didn't think of this possibility. The paragraph needs to be rephrased.

btw, this was the calculation I used US electorate Doppelzoo 17:00, 21 Sep 2004 (CET)

I think the 23 % number is wrong. I calculated what percentage of the population the 40 smallest states representing an e college majority was and got 45%.

With plurality wins, there is no minimum threshold. But the states you have to win can make up, at a minimum, 45% of the pop. dinopup

I had assumed you had an Electoral College to pick the President because things could change between the Electors setting out, and them arriving.

I could have said Absence of Penicillin .... which would be one of the conditions predisposing to change in that way.

But now there is a telephone in every town, perhaps that odd system can be tidied up.

UK -- I don't think we have the same thing. We elect a party and the party chooses its leader, the leader might change soon after an election, but only through death or incapacity, so we know who the PM is going to be per party.

It isn't too different from the US system. In the UK, the party chooses a leader and you elect a party. In the US, the party chooses a leader and you select the leader - which implies a party. It is still partisan voting. Kainaw 13:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But in America, the legislature doesn't choose the executive, that fact is the essence of the British system. (note, in the Virginia Plan Madison wanted the House to choose the pres, so we almost became a parliamentary system)

Walter Bagehot compares the English system and the US electoral college in the English Constitution. He considers the English system to be the fulfillment of what the Foundign Fathers actually wanted - a deliberative body. Along which much else in our system of government, Bagehot considered the electoral college to be absurd.dinopup

Electors - who are they ... really - how do they get the job

Can anyone explain who they are and how they get the job - maybe a real name example?

First, sign your comments/questions so it isn't so cold and anonymous. Second, there is no federal law about how to select electors. So, the states do it however they like. Most states have a state party convention select them. A few have a state party committee select them. I'm in South Carolina, so I can give you an example from here. It is a mostly Republican state and will likely vote Republican. Assuming it does, the state's Republican party will get 8 trusted Republicans to go to Washington DC and vote Republican. By state law, if they decide to vote for someone like Nader or Homer Simpson, they will be prosecuted. Because they are acting in a robotic way - just going through the motions they are required by law to go through - it doesn't matter if it is me or the guy who lives under the bridge by the interstate who votes. So, they don't make a big deal out of advertising the names of each elector. Kainaw 13:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guaranteed 2?

For district voting (e.g., Maine and Nebraska)... As previously noted, the winner in those two states is only guaranteed two electoral votes,

The winner must win at least one district in addition to the two corresponding to Senate seats. Hence, the wniner is guaranteed three electoral votes.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're right if there are only two candidates. With three, couldn't a candidate win a state 40:30:30 while losing every district (say, 20:30:0 and 20:0:30 in a two-district state)? Josh Cherry 01:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i konw that poeple do feel this way but in y heart of hearts i know that it is not true thatb he said that. THere is enough information to abck my assertions up.

                                                     Love alway yours   truly                                                 and one and on

lily

The 23rd Amendment and Congress

The Republican Congress controls three electoral votes under the 23rd amendment which is supposed to enfranchise the residents of D.C. but which, on a careful reading, grants Congress the plenary powers of a state legislature to appoint electors. The Republicans control Congress and 2004 is a very close presidential election. Somebody call Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, because Bush might need those three electoral votes. Surely the political downside of using them would be negligible since Congressmen aren't accountable in any way to D.C. residents (unlike state legislators which could face their voters' wrath for reassuming the power to appoint electors), and most come from safe Republican districts that couldn't care less. Putting those three electoral votes to use would be a slam dunk for the Republicans. Pgva 19:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)