So why do we have the electoral college, instead of just a straight popular vote? Simple. This system allows EVERY state to have a say, no matter what.
First, let's quickly describe what the electoral vote method is.
In the electoral college process, each state receives the number of electoral votes equal to the number of its members of the House, which depends on the state's population, and the number of its senators, which is always two.
So, for example, Illinois has 22 electoral votes, because it has 20 members of the House and two senators. California has the most electoral votes, with 54.
No state gets any fewer than 3 electoral votes. The District of Columbia also has 3 electoral votes making 538 total electoral votes possible.
You need 50% plus one vote in order to win.
That means that currently, 270 electoral votes are need to win.
Let's run some examples with realistic numbers in a fictional race where 100% of the population votes between two candidates. (Impossible, I know, but it makes calculating the numbers easier for all of us.) These numbers are according to State Population Estimates, in 7/99 (latest figures I could find).
Now with a total population of 272,690,813 people in the USA, that means, theoretically, a 51% majority vote equals 139,072,315 people voting for the winner.
the most populous state is California with 33,145,121 people there. The lowest population belongs to Wyoming with a whopping 479,602 people living there.
In a popular vote election, if 51% of California vote for one candidate, that's 16,309,948 votes.
If the lowest population states vote 100% for the other candidate, California's votes nullify all the votes of:
West Virginia
New Mexico
Nebraska
Maine
Idaho
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Montana
Delaware
South Dakota
North Dakota
Alaska
Vermont
District of Columbia
and Wyoming.
(The lowest population states)
In the closest race possible, all these 15 states (and one district) COMBINED will never have their voice heard no matter what against just half of California.
If we increase the California vote to 55%, then we can also cut out Nevada from the elections since 18,229,817 of California has had their say.
If a candidate gets 65% of California, or 21,544,329 votes, then Utah is also thrown out of the race.
In fact, in order to get 51% of the votes or 139,072,315, a candidate needs the votes from ONLY:
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
and New Jersey.
(The highest population states)
This gives a candidate 139,883,334 votes and the win.
9 states have just spoken for the entire Union.
and that's in the CLOSEST election possible. At 55% and 65% it's even worse.
All hail the winner!!
In comparison:
In the same elections described above, a 51% vote in California wins all 54 electoral votes. To balance that, the other candidate must only win 51% (and thus all the electoral votes) of the 15 lowest population states instead of 100%. With that result being more plausible, candidates are more likely to visit and pay attention to the smaller states.
If 65% of California votes for a candidate, nothing changes. The other states, still have their say without needing to vote 100% for one candidate.
In fact in a really close race, where the electoral votes are split 267/268, it's possible that Wyoming's 3 electoral votes can tip the scale in someone's favor. The lowest population state has a say where, in a popular vote election, they probably won't even be considered.
So as we can see, as long as we want ALL the states to have a "fair" say as to who will lead the USA, we must keep the electoral college system intact.
We MUST remember that this system was created toward the beginning of this country's creation when only a handful of colonies/states existed. They wanted a system that kept one branch of the government from electing the office of another branch, and they also needed something that could allow smaller states to have a say. The electoral college was not an overnight decision. It was a well thought out planned portion of our government to keep itself well regulated.
I believe that impulse attempts to remove the system are very bad and short sighted actions. Please reconsider any thoughts you might have to ridding our country of this imperfect but useful voting system.
Now, I am sorry this is so long, but I wanted to be complete, and I understand how hard this all is to grasp, if from other places, as the US is unique in giving each seperate state equality, in our Representative Democracy, aka, Republic. These situations never come into play anywhere but the US, because what other Republics are there? And what is the realitive populations and land masses of the countries you seek to compare us with?
And finally, someone posted above about the Electoral College, it being unfair, etc. It is with us by virtue of our Constitution, therefore it is the Law of the Land as much as Congress is, and the banning of slaves. It can be admended, changed, at anytime. Two-thirds of all the states must agree....by vote of their individual State Legislatures. It has indeed been changed many times......27 times in fact.
