I'm confused about the electoral college

vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I thought I understood how it worked, but apparently I don't. There are a number of pundits who are saying that Mrs. Clinton has the EC votes to win. Um, excuse me? My understanding is that the People vote, and the electoral votes must reflect that on whatever level the state has decided on. But the votes by the electorate must be case first before any electors can make a decision.

So how could either candidate already have enough EC votes to win, when we haven't even had the election yet?
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
As I understand it, many states are winner-takes-all for electoral college votes. So it may not matter that 10 million votes are cast in California for Donald Trump, because the 35 million cast for Hilary means the entire state goes for Hilary.

So if you have a significant lead in a majority of the more populous states, then you can lock-up enough electoral votes (270) to win, regardless of how you do in every other state. This is why it's possible to have a winner that lost the popular vote.

Coincidentally, this is also why I don't believe there is any credence to the electronic vote switching issue in MD. MD is a winner take all state, and according to the polls (fivethirtyeight.com) there is less than one tenth of one percent chance that the state will go for Trump. So even if you were 100% guaranteed to get away with it, why would you bother wasting the time and effort to switch votes when it will have zero effect on the election?
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
When you vote, you vote for an "elector". There's 538 (435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 3 for DC) across the country.

All but 2 states (Maine and Nebraska which are proportional) are winner take all. So the winner of the popular vote in each applicable state gets the electoral vote. In states with less electors, a win doesn't mean as much as, say, the winner of California (Wyoming, for example has 3 electoral votes. California has 55).

8 states alone (CA, FL, TX, PA, IL, OH, FL, NY) make up 209 electoral votes and the winner only needs 270. Those saying Clinton has enough are probably assuming she'll win the big states.

So, while a candidate can win the majority of the popular vote, they can still lose the election (Bush/Gore for example).
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
I thought I understood how it worked, but apparently I don't. There are a number of pundits who are saying that Mrs. Clinton has the EC votes to win. Um, excuse me? My understanding is that the People vote, and the electoral votes must reflect that on whatever level the state has decided on. But the votes by the electorate must be case first before any electors can make a decision.

So how could either candidate already have enough EC votes to win, when we haven't even had the election yet?
Click to expand...

No one has any votes. They're assuming. Almost no states have a proportional split of EC votes, so based on polls, history, etc. We can "know" that HRC will win all of CA's votes, and therefore HRC "already has won" CA.

Just inappropriate assumptions.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
This_person said:
No one has any votes. They're assuming. Almost no states have a proportional split of EC votes, so based on polls, history, etc. We can "know" that HRC will win all of CA's votes, and therefore HRC "already has won" CA.

Just inappropriate assumptions.
Click to expand...

Okay, so they're pretending that polls are actual voting, and based on their polls it's all over?

That's what I thought, but wanted to make sure they hadn't changed the EC while I wasn't looking.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Big city #### holes control our elections, and therefore our government.
Click to expand...

:yay:

It is my personal opinion, not supported by documentation or even the first elections, that the original intent was to have each congressional district vote, plus two for the state winner. The distribution of electoral college votes based on population makes this implication clear to me, though I do not think most states have ever done that.

The problem is, that would make every district equal, which would make campaigning a lot more difficult as candidates would be required to think about the whole population instead of "interest groups" that swing concentration areas.
 
lovinmaryland

lovinmaryland

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
When you vote, you vote for an "elector". There's 538 (435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and 3 for DC) across the country.

All but 2 states (Maine and Nebraska which are proportional) are winner take all. So the winner of the popular vote in each applicable state gets the electoral vote. In states with less electors, a win doesn't mean as much as, say, the winner of California (Wyoming, for example has 3 electoral votes. California has 55).

8 states alone (CA, FL, TX, PA, IL, OH, FL, NY) make up 209 electoral votes and the winner only needs 270. Those saying Clinton has enough are probably assuming she'll win the big states.
So, while a candidate can win the majority of the popular vote, they can still lose the election (Bush/Gore for example).
Click to expand...
This is exactly why a lot of people don't vote.

They need to get rid of the EC and just have it go to a popular vote.
 
P

philibusters

Active Member
This race shifted quickly. Two weeks I assumed Trump was completely done. The Real Clear Politics average of polls had him down six percent and trending higher (they average out polls from the last two weeks, so the older polls had him down 4or 5 percent and the more recent polls had him down like 7%). Now its flipped, the Real Clear Politics average of polls has him down 2 percent but the most recent polls basically have him in a tie with Hillary, the older polls from a couple weeks where she was up four points that is giving him the lead.

The whole email thing worked out well for the Republicans because by re-opening the investigation so to speak 11 days before the election, Hillary cannot just wait that out ( by wait it out, I mean let the natural course of people getting upset and forgetting as time passes)
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
lovinmaryland said:
This is exactly why a lot of people don't vote.

They need to get rid of the EC and just have it go to a popular vote.
Click to expand...

Winner take all states are the ones that need to be changed so that the electoral votes are truly representational. Each Congressional district gets one electoral vote, and that vote should be cast depending on who that district went for.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Winner take all states are the ones that need to be changed so that the electoral votes are truly representational. Each Congressional district gets one electoral vote, and that vote should be cast depending on who that district went for.
Click to expand...

And the districts should not be gerrymandered.

Speaking of....has anyone heard from Hogan and/or the state regarding the gerrymandering they were supposed to look into?
 
terbear1225

terbear1225

Well-Known Member
my understanding is that there is no specific requirement that electors cast their vote in accordance with their district/ state popular vote either.
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Winner take all states are the ones that need to be changed so that the electoral votes are truly representational. Each Congressional district gets one electoral vote, and that vote should be cast depending on who that district went for.
Click to expand...

That has its own issue too, given how gerrymandered some states are. At least with a winner take all you know more people than not (in your state) are represented. With a district style you could get a situation where the more electoral votes are cast for the person who didn't win the popular vote in your state.
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Just make it simple, if you believe proportional voting to be correct, then count every vote. You have 10 electoral votes and 60 percent of the total votes are for candidate one, then that candidate gets 6 votes. Easy peasy.
 
T

tommyjo

New Member
vraiblonde said:
I thought I understood how it worked, but apparently I don't. There are a number of pundits who are saying that Mrs. Clinton has the EC votes to win. Um, excuse me? My understanding is that the People vote, and the electoral votes must reflect that on whatever level the state has decided on. But the votes by the electorate must be case first before any electors can make a decision.

So how could either candidate already have enough EC votes to win, when we haven't even had the election yet?
Click to expand...

Wow...that is a stunning admission of ignorance for someone who posts so furiously on political issues.
 
Bird Dog

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
The whole purpose of the Electoral College was so Mass. and Va. would not control the country. The other states could all vote for another candidate and win the election. Just like now, if California and New York swing the popular vote as they did with Bush/Gore we don't have a president that just represents those two states. We are not a
Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic which in my humble opinion is still the better way to go....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top