Thanks Dean

I guess an historical context makes all the difference. The E.U. is trying to write a constitution these days and is actuallly finding next to impossible. There are too many languages, conflicting values and cultures for it to work I think.

There is one system used in Europe and Ireland that I have a lot of time for however, and that is the concept of the single transferrable vote and used in America it would, for example, allow democrats to express their approval of Nader while at the same time expressing their complete dislike for Bush. Are you familiar with the system and what is your opinion of it?

I grew up in Wyoming, and decided to move to the city. Now I live in Montana. The electoral college and the Senate are near and dear to my heart- It's what allowed us Al Simpson, Dick Cheney and Mike Mansfield.

Of course, Marc Racicot is from around these parts, too. So, perhaps there is a way for underpopulated states to have a voice, but the electoral college and senate establish it with certainty, year in and year out.

Good explanation. One of the best & easiest to understand analogies I have heard is that the EC is like a sports final playoff. (Do they have the equivalent in soccer?)

The winner isn't the team that scored the most total points in the playoff games, it's the team that won the most individual contests.

I support the Electoral College, the Senate (whose apportionment by state rather than by population cannot be changed even by Constitutional amendment), and the Supreme Court. Let's keep our Constitutional system the way it is. As a Conservative, I'm against any change except the change in my pocket.

The Electoral College is one of the last vestiges of our lamented constitutional republic. We'd better hang on to it.

Dean, my experience is that people don't understand the Electoral College (good 'splanation, BTW) because they keep thinking we ARE a democracy and we aren't.

Constitutional Republic is such a different concept.

If I ruled the world I'd order 3 lashes for every school teacher who tells kids, "we live in a democracy."

The E.U. is trying to write a constitution these days and is actuallly finding next to impossible. There are too many languages, conflicting values and cultures for it to work I think.

I've been very pessimistic about the EU all along for that very reason. It's far easier to establish a polyglot, multicutural society under an existing constitution, than to establish a written constitution for a polyglot, multicutural society. To live together under one set of laws and mores, somebody has to give up the ones they are accustomed to -- and my best guess is that most of the larger countries in the EU have privately determined they won't be the ones giving it up unless they all give it up.

My ultra-cynical side still thinks France will ultimately be the fulcrum on which the EU ... breaks.

The fact is that George W. Bush won a majority of votes in a majority of States. Nothing can change that, as much as voters in New York and California and Michigan and Massachussets would wish they were more important than voters in Tennessee, Arkansas, or Wyoming.

He won the 2000 election, fair and square. Without so much as any "cheating" in Florida. Failure to acknowledge that is nothing but crybaby bullshit.

You don't win the Stanley Cup by winning the most games in the season. You don't win the World Series by having the pitcher with the best Base On Balls average. You win it by the rules of the game.

George W. Bush: winner of the 2000 election, not by a "technicality," but by the rules of the game established well over 200 years ago. Don't like the game? Change them. And if you can't change them, stop whining you crybaby motherfucker.

A week before Election Day, in 2000, it was being said that Al Gore might well win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote. When I heard that, I said, "Hey, if that happens, I'll support him, because those are the rules of the game."

I was very surprised when it went the other way. But so be it: he won. He won, he won, HE WON.

That is how it works, and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking crybaby loser., no different than Pistons fans who say, "We won the most games, so we should be the NBA champs by default!"

Nuh-uh. That's not how the rules work. You don't like the rules? Then change them. But otherwise shut the fuck up, you crybabies.

"But the Red Sox had the better average win/lose ratio in 2003!" the Sox fans claiim.

"Yeah? So what?" is the only appropriate answer.

Wow. Who set that off?

Dunno. Just in a mood, and tired of whinters. "We won the most votes!" they wail.

Yeah. In New York and California. So what? Jerkwads.

Gosh, you'd think you folks were sensitive about the 2000 election or something, the way you keep reminding us that President Bush is really...the President.

Duh.

The winner isn't the team that scored the most total points in the playoff games, it's the team that won the most individual contests.

Hey, look, I'm OK with the Electoral College; but I think that analogy is not really a good one because the citizens of each state don't view themselves as members of a team. Yeah, I know all about states' rights and all, but our Declaration and Constitution are, at core, about inalienable individual rights.

Mrs. du Toit is, of course, correct about our government being designed as a constitutionally limited Republic. That means that the Constitution is designed to check the excesses of the government. It is designed to protect the inalienable rights of the people, including the inalienable rights of the minority against the majority. The framers distrusted democracy, thinking it to be one step removed from mob rule.

The next time you read that 70% of the respondents to a poll are against same sex marriage and/or civil unions, think about the inalienable individual right to the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution was designed to protect that, and other, rights.

I have to honest, Dean, and in my trevails to the wildest sections of the net, I haven't found the idea that Bush is illegitimate because he lost the popular vote to be widespread - most people, I think, understand the rules of the electoral college (the vast majority, I'd expect).

There are various and sundry explanations for calling Bush illegitimate - but the popular vote one isn't one I've come across very often.

When I studied EU law in Britain, our (very) British professor told us that his American students always had a much easier time "getting" how the EU worked than his British students because we'd grown up in a federal system and they hadn't. Dual sovereignty makes perfect sense to us but they didn't get it with their mothers' milk. The more time passes, the less likely it seems that the British, at least, will decide they like it (at least as currently contemplated).

Another explanation of the Electoral College is that it forces candidates to visit the rest of the country. If you had a popular Texan and a popular Californian running as a ticket, together they could spend all their time in their own states trying to get as many popular votes as possible. The populations of TX and CA are so large that by getting those two states almost guarantees you victory in an election based solely on the popular vote.

But in the electoral college system, this type of campagning strategy doesn't work. Each party has to at least try to be competitive in each state becase even a tiny little state can be enough to tip the election either way. If Gore had won New Hampshire, Florida wouldn't have mattered...

I just think it's funny that anyone from Ireland would call our electoral process odd. It must just be a matter of what you grew up with.

I think the Irish presidential elections are the weirdest ever. (Yes, Ireland does have a President, and the office has been filled by women for almost 25 years) Any number of people can run, even if there is more than one candidate from a party. You choose your top candidates, in order of favor. If no one has a majority of 1st place votes, they knock out the bottom candidates, transfer and recount, knock out the bottom candidates, transfer and recount, over and over, until someone has 50%.

I'm probably exaggerating, and this is actually not meant as criticism (I think it's kinda cool, frankly), just a difference in what seems "normal."

Good job. But you left out DC! :-)

The only problem with the EC currently is that the ratio of representatives to constituents has gotten bigger over the years. Each state has two senators and 1 rep but the representatives in Wyoming and many other states (Alaska, Montana) represent far fewer constituents then do the representatives in bigger states (any state that qualifies for more then the request number of representatives). To correct this problem the number of representatives must be adjusted to equal the lowest number of constituents represented by the smallest one Rep state. Unfortunately this would double the size of the house but it would have a very interesting effect on politics, it would expand the number of people you need to get a majority for a bill and it would also double the amount of money it would take to bribe … er contribute to congressional campaigns.

It would also make the House much more grass roots like it was 150 years ago. And it would reduce the effective power of the one Rep states and make things like the elimination of the farm bill possible.

There is a pretty good book on this subject which supports the Idea of the EC called Political Numericy by Michael Myerson. It also looks at issues such as instant run off voting and other issues form a mathematical perspective.

While you raise an excellent point, SaWb, about forcing a candidate to campaign in other states, the very fact that it isn't a strict popular vote also means that if a particular state is historically biased against a certain party, it doesn't benefit a candidate from that party to campaign there. A campaign in that state might allow him (or her) to lose by a smaller margin, but that margin doesn't affect the number of electoral votes in the least.

Of course, the candidate first needs to get nominated by his party, and even states that have no chance of giving him electoral votes can help him get his party's nomination. So maybe it all balances out in the end!

Max M, while no intelligent person says that Bush is illegitimate because he didn't get "the popular vote" and means it, intelligent people have been known to say it in quasi-jest, and unintelligent people have been known to say it and mean it. These are the same people who, if asked if they know what the Electoral College is will reply "No, I didn't go to college."

I've often wondered if our elective process should include a "first-choice/second-choice" or "instant run-off" option.

For example, in 2000, assuming Nader voters had picked Al Gore as their second choice, the process would have favored Gore. Perhaps that might have been balanced off against Buchanan voters choosing Bush as their second choice.

Or in 1992 assuming Perot voters had picked Bush as their second choice, the process would have favored Bush.

Anyone care to speculate if that would work in the US?

I think intelligent people in Europe simply don't understand our federal system. It is easy to understand why they think there is something illegitimate about Bush being President over Gore. So Europeans need to be educated.

But it is not reasonable for Americans to lack understanding of the system. The system has provided for a remarkable amount of stability, and it should not be changed. In 54 Presidential elections, only 4 times have the popular vote and the Electoral College vote not agreed. That is a fair trade-off for the ballast provided by the Electoral College system.

It might be fairly represented that Gore won the popular vote by the margin 225-211. But Bush won the state vote by the margin 60-42. The aggregate result is the combination of the two votes. Therefore 271-267, Bush wins.

It would be interesting to find out what the vote would have been if all states allocated their popular Electoral College votes by Congressional district like Nebraska and Maine. If I recall correctly, in 2000 Gore got 3 EC votes from Maine, but Bush got 1.

It would be interesting to see how the dynamic of Presidential campaigns might change if every Congressional District was up for grabs, not just the overall states. That is a change which I would support, but that is not a federal issue.

It is up to each individual state to determine how to use their electoral college votes. The States are not even required to submit their electoral college votes to public vote. Of course, if they didn't, the population would revolt. But the fact remains, the Constitution does not require it.

Hey Dean,

Doesn't the fact that we are a Federation of 50 sovreign states mean that we should have 50 votes in the UN instead of 1?

For your Irish friend, does the fact that Lichstenstien has an equal vote as the US in the General Assembly of the UN mean that the UN is an illegitimate organization?

While I enjoyed your excellent post on the merits of the electoral college (an ingenious system, if I must say so), the analogy of the 13 colonies as 13 little nations is stretching things a bit. The colonies existed as colonies under British rule, and thus were subject to the same British government. When they went to war against the british, they did so as a group, and once the war was over, they thrashed out the constitution and bill of rights as a group. So while the US states may have been sovereign nations for a very brief period during their history, they were for the most part always part of the whole. And that's the beauty of the experiment that makes it different from the EU.

the current EU, which has a host of sovereign nations with a long history of independence suddenly deciding to come together to promote ... economic bargaining power? In fact, I would submit that pretty much everything about the EU as it is constituting is diametrically opposite to the way the US formed, and more's the pity for the europeans.

Thanks to some plucky Irish kin for sticking up for national sovereignty in the face of eurosocialism.

From what I understand, however, states cannot use an electoral college system in their own elections for governor. Does anyone know the reasons for that? It would make a big difference in politically divided states like Oregon, where west of the Cascades is more populated and liberal, while the east side is less populated and more conservative.

Just wonderin'...

Bryan

While your point that the original 13 ... um ... entities had a lot of similarities, don't take that too far.

Prior to the Second Continental Congress, they had the authority to mint their own currencies, (I believe) levy tarrifs on interstate trade, and could muster their own military forces. If you look back at the official titles of the states, Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania are Commonwealths, while Rhode Island is "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation", while Texas, as far as I know, maintains the right to fragment into five separate states.

While it doesn't pay to read too much into this, it is relevant to keep in mind that much of the vestigial trappings of independent statehood can still be found.

Steven den Beste covered the advantages of sucha system a while ago. It's an interesting read.

http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Faulttolerantdistributedc.shtml

I'm sure it's obvious to most folks here, but the popular vote count, in an election setup with different rules, makes it silly to look at the results of the popular vote.

For example, I used to live in Illinois--major leftist central. I knew that my conservative vote made no different to the outcome. So what to do with my vote? This is why folks in states with a dominant leaning will often vote for a third party "message" candidate. If I my vote doesn't make a difference in who wins, at least I can send a message another way--and vote for a candidate I know will not win, but best represents my views.

This is especially true in states like New York and California (large populations). If it appears that the candidate you want cannot win in your state, a lot of folks will just stay home.

The point being, that the popular vote is totally meaningless. People DO understand the rules of the game and they play by those rules, and those rules influence what they do.

If the rules were suddenly changed, so would the results, because the strategy would change.

Okay, that was pretty good, and explained a lot of stuff about the American electoral system that I didn't get before.

But I didn't understand this bit:

"For our Head of State? He shall be elected based upon the popular vote of a majority of Nations. Each Nation shall have a minimum of three votes (one for each Senator, plus one for each Representative). He who wins the majority of votes from each Nation shall be President, and shall have certain (limited) powers granted to the Head of State."

The first sentence indicates that the President is elected by popular vote, but the second seemes to indicate that the President is elected by the Senate and House of Reps.

I also don't get the primaries thing.

And then the bit in the comments (the part about "fucking crybaby losers") about the popular vote confused things a bit more. How many votes did Gore get vs. Bush? Here in Canada, we frequently have governments elected by less than a majority vote, for a number of reasons. I thought the same was possible in the US.

The first sentence does indicate that a popular vote determines how the Electoral College members of each state will vote. I'm not sure where the confusion lies.

Stu,

We usually have candidates elected by less than a majority vote. At least the last three elections shook out that way. Clinton actually got a smaller fraction of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996 than Bush did in 2000, because the third-party vote was stronger. The difference with 2000 was that the candidate with the plurality vote didn't win the election. Clinton didn't get majorities, but he did get more votes than anyone else running.

Stu: Yes a less than majority electoral college vote is possible for the president, but ties and a mere pulrality are resolved in the House. In that case, assuming a party line vote the majority party wins the Presidency. Had Nader and Buchannan each carried a small state in 2000 this is what would have happened. Result: Republican majority in congress votes G.W.B. the president.
no real difference

Jon - the confusion is that I thought the majority vote was aggregate. So each State votes for how their representitives and senators will vote, and they elect the president?

Ooohh. Okay, I get it. This then could lead to a overall majority popular vote for a candidate that doesn't win the election.

Same thing can happen with us because we have election districts (called "ridings", from a Norse word) that elect representantives to parliament (called "Members of Parliament" if federal and "Members of the Legislative Assembly" if provincial). Because all ridings don't have the same number of voters, this can result in parties coming to power without an overall majority vote.

Now, what's up with the primaries?

Michelle,

"Usually" is overstating the case. Historically, it has been quite usual for the winner of the Presidential election to have captured a majority of the popular vote (although, as previously noted, the national popular vote is more of an intellectual curiosity than anything else). The 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections were unusual in that a third-party candidate was able to attract enough votes to ensure that neither of the major-party candidates achieved a majority. If you look at the elections in 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, etc., I believe you will see that the reverse is more typical, because third-parties are usually substantially irrelevent.

I predict that the winner of the 2004 Presidential election will capture a clear majority of the national popular vote, for instance.

The primaries are how each party chooses their candidate--it doesn't have anything to do with how the final votes are cast. A party may have only one candidate on the ballot. But a candidate who previously aligned with a particular party and lost in the primaries for that party, can choose another party, or run as an independant.

Stu - each state determines how its electors will vote (and the electors are *not* the Senators and Representatives; they're just determined by the number thereof.) Therefore, one state can decide to portion out its electors according to the popular vote within the state, and another can decide to have a "winner-takes-all" system.

Moreover, there's something you don't hear about very often, and that's "rogue electors." In other words, the electors can potentially go haring off in their own directions and ignore the state vote entirely. Generally they don't as there are usually stiff consequences in place, but it is a worry. However, it allows the electors to indulge in horse trading if there is a serious problem, such as the election that led to Rutherford B. Hayes' Presidency. Hayes was not the most popular or even the second most popular candidate; the top two hadn't even mustered a plurality and the people involved were very mulish, so in the interests of stability, they proposed Hayes as a compromise.

And you thought the 2000 election was weird.

Stu - a minor correction.

The 'Electors' of the Electoral College are apportioned in equal number to the sum of Senators and Representatives, but the Senators and Representatives themselves are not the Electors.

Take Oklahoma for example (my home state):

Last I checked, we had 2 Senators and 6 Representatives. Thus we have 8 Electoral Votes. But those 8 Electors are usually a totally seperate group from the Senators and Representatives who serve us in Congress.

If, however, the Electoral Vote was won only by a plurality, those 6 Representatives would have a direct influence as opposed to an indirect one, on the outcome, as Stan said.

Thank you. I had meant to post something like this myself, Real Soon Now, except in addition to illustrating WHY the electoral college method of selecting a President is a Good Thing (many people have no clue), I was going to illustrate why Senators were NOT popularly elected originally, and why the 17th Amendment is a Bad Thing.

Sam:

You're quite right, of course. I suppose my memory is a little skewed simply by the fact that the first Presidential election I was old enough to vote in was 1988, so three of the four I've actually voted in involved plurality winners. (Also, history courses tend to focus on weird elections, like 1948 for example, and so they stick out more than they probably ought.)

It's worth pointing out, though, that if there are any third party candidates worth mentioning, we're probably in for another plurality election, because the country's so evenly split. The only reason, for example, that 1980 wasn't a plurality election is that Carter tanked. The equivalent of John Anderson in 2004 would pretty much insure that no one got a majority. Thankfully, Nader isn't the equivalent of John Anderson ;-)

Aarggghh. Cranium exploded trying to figure this out. Thought I had it.

"Electors"? Dean didn't mention those in his article. They elect the president? Are they elected, or appointed? By who? Do they have any other duties? They're in congress? Are they congressmen (& congresswomen?), or some other group? Do they have a term of office?

You guys. This is a seriously complicated arrangement.

Electors are nominated to be on the ballot via petition, just like virtually all other candidates. You vote for a slate of electors, generally, each selected by the candidate to which they pledge their votes to ahead of time. The two largest parties generally have advantages assigned to them so they don't have to work as hard at getting signatures.

So when you cast your vote for President, what you are really doing is casting a vote for an electoral slate (the only instance I know of in the US of party list balloting). The electoral slate that wins must meet sometime in December, debate, hold minutes of their meeting, and vote. The vote results are sent to the Congress where the Senate President tabulates the result. The entire Congress is there to ensure there are no voting irregularities and they vote to accept or reject irregular votes.

There are cases where two slates have sent their results to the Congress and that body had to sort that out, deciding one vote was legitimate, the other illegitimate. You can imagine that by the time it gets to that phase, things are very ticklish.

The Senate President is always the Vice President, btw, and he does not have to step aside due to a conflict of interest if there is a contested election in which he is one of the candidates.

I've never thought about it that way (50 individual nations), Dean. Of course, that pretty much, by definition, makes USA an "Evil Empire".

I should mention that people who complain about the American system while comparing it to the oh so democratic Canadian system are off their rockers. The Canadian system is, in fact, a much more exaggerated electoral system. We only have 13 "nations", for one thing. Here, though, we aren't even voting for the PM/Premier/Whatever, we are voting for our local provincial/federal representative. If you vote for a Liberal federal rep, you are, by proxy, voting for the Liberals for PM. If you vote for a Conservative provincial rep, you are, by proxy, voting for a Conservative for Premier. The PM never even shows up on a ballot, and the Premier only shows up on whatever local ballot he represents.

And it is not uncommon for a region to have a Liberal federal rep at the same time as a Conservative (or PC, or whatever) provincial (or vise versa).

But dowingba, why is that undemocratic? You're voting for a platform of policies, not on a personality to run things. Plus the party leader can be kicked out of the job if the party thinks that he/she is betraying the principles of the party (or not handing out patronage appointments or graft, whatever).

Now, if you were to bring in the Lieutenant-Governor or the Senate into the picture, you'd have more of an argument there...

Here's a pretty good article on the history and function of the Electoral College. Ie's in PDF format, 20 pages.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

One happy result of our non-democratic (small d) Senate is that it limits a little the power that coastal and big city "progressives" have to meddle in affairs that don't really concern them, such as the management of range lands and mining in the West. I'd live to watch a Manhattan yuppie try to lecture a Nevada rancher, face to face.

Stu, my point is that the same people who call America undemocratic because of the Electoral College usually can be seen flying off about how supremely democratic the Canadian system is. When in reality, the Canadian system is just an exaggerated form of America's "undemocratic" system.

Dowingba - oh. I'd never heard anyone describe the American system as undemocratic. Just confusing. But I'm sure ours looks as confusing.

bryan, don't forget the original Articles of Confederation, which stated that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." After seven years the Articles were replaced by the Constitution and the federal government gained more power, but it's useful to see where they were coming from.

Think of electors sort of as "proxies." When we vote in a Presidential election, we're picking the proxy that has pledged to vote for the specified candidate (in the first round of their voting). Essentially, we're choosing someone to speak for us at a National delegation (it is at that National delegation where the President is actually elected--not when we vote). It's a failsafe.

The reason there are people (not just a tally) is that in order to become President you have to get a specific number of electoral votes--it isn't who gets the most--it's a hard number. If after the public has voted, no candidate has that number or more, the electors can vote for someone else--they have to compromise and act on our behalf, using their best judgement.

The idea being that we don't want to have to vote and vote and vote again (as a nation) in order to elect the President (dealing with that uncertainty).

Electorates are pledged to vote for the candidate in the first round, but there is nothing that would prevent them voting for another candidate. There's always talk of a spoiler in winner-take-all-states who has been planted by the opposition.

I think it may appear strange if you view the President in the way that many other countries view the role. In the U.S., the President does not have that much power--he cannot decide issues for the states (each state has their own government). It is very much like the EU model, where each country still has a government (broken down into local, regional and national).

Since the President is charged with Foreign Relations (as one of his THREE duties, yes, that's all he is allowed), the view of America that most non-Americans have is of our President--but it is a very trivial role in the day-to-day operations of the individual states. The Governors of each state (and the individual state legislators) have much more power and authority at the local level.

... And, I might add, some governors don't have that much power themselves. Texas is one such state where most of the power is placed with the legislature, and it only meets once every two years. All other statewide offices are elected, so the governor doesn't even really choose his own cabinet (secretary of state, comptroller, lt. gov., etc.).

Regarding my contention about the colonial nations, I will reiterate that the *colonies* were only quasi-independent for a very short period of time. They had a common ancestry and governmental tradition via the British. That is - again - nothing like the current EU, which includes nations with centuries long histories of sovereignty and all that implies. Trying to make the european nations into a "US-style" federal state is like trying to change a flock of geese (very cranky, individualistic geese who speak different languages) into a cow.

Stu:

Aarggghh. Cranium exploded trying to figure this out. Thought I had it. "Electors"?...

Yeah. Electors. And get this: They can vote for anyone they want.

Mrs. du Toit touched on it, but she buried the lede.

It's the single most screwy thing about the whole system: The electors can do whatever the hell they want. They can skip casting their vote when the Senate tallies em up in January (happened in 2000). They can vote for someone else (happened in 1968). Anything.

Heh.

Bravo Romeo Delta:
"If you look back at the official titles of the states, Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania are Commonwealths, while Rhode Island is 'State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation,' while Texas, as far as I know, maintains the right to fragment into five separate states."

Small point, but I'm pretty sure Massachusetts is a commonwealth, too. Texas, I'm not prepared to comment on; that place is just weird. :)

Texas is more than weird. It's the promised land. ;-)

And yes, it does have the right to split into five separate states, but why we'd want to is beyond comprehension. Of course, if you want to talk about states that were originally nations unto themselves, I think Texas was unique in the respect that we (speaking in the editorial native Texan "we") fought a war of independence against Mexico basically alone, unlike the colonies, which had - you know - 13 *whatevers* and a whole OCEAN between themselves and their adversary's home base.

GO TEXAS! ALL HAIL THE GREATEST STATE IN THE UNION, HOME TO SEA, MOUNTAIN, DESERT, FOREST, HILL, LAKE, STREAM AND THE MIGHTY LARGE MOUTH BASS.

Sorry, started channeling Steven Malcolm Anderson for a moment there.

The main thing is that what we have works. We have had only one civil war, which set people free, and the losers were not excecuted.

While the electors are not obligated by law to vote for the candidate who received the most popular votes in the state, in practice, they will receive a lot of flak from their political party if they don't. As someone else pointed out, when you vote for a candidate you are actually voting for a slate of electors. The electors are typically chosen by the party (or in the case of independent candidates, by the candidate). They are typically people with a long history in the party or with the candidate, the elector role often being offered to them as a sort of reward for their service. Thus, they usually have a lot to lose if they don't vote for their designated candidate in the electoral delegation.

Mrs. du Toit said:
"Electorates are pledged to vote for the candidate in the first round, but there is nothing that would prevent them voting for another candidate."

Huh? There's only one round of the Electoral College. If nobody gets a majority, it goes to the House of Representatives, though oddly each state's delegation gets 1 vote. Also, if no one gains a majority for the VP slot, the Senate votes one in.

bryan says:
"Of course, if you want to talk about states that were originally nations unto themselves..."

The only two states that were ever truly independent nations were Texas and Hawaii. The original thirteen colonies jumped more-or-less straight from British rule to the Articles of Confederation to the current Constitution.

Of course, for a fun example of state independence, Michigan and Ohio almost went to war over the city of Toledo. The feds bought Michigan off by giving us the Upper Peninsula. Of course, Michigan wasn't quite a state yet then, and the only reason the war didn't happen is because the militias couldn't find each other...

Scott

The Irish man here. The fact that the Leichtenstein has the same vote as the U.S.A. on the U.N. general assembly is far outweighed by the fact of Americas permanent status on the Security Council a "temporary" arrangement set up over 50 years ago.

Ru,

I realize that. I was being sarcastic. The point is that it is easy to understand the American system if you consider 2 facts.

1) The US House of Representatives represents the people, is elected in toto every 2 years.

2) The Senate represents the States, not the people.

The big problem that I see with the current EU configuration is that, in effect, only the states of Europe are represented, not the people. Originally, the Legislatures of the respective states selected their Senatorial Representatives, very similar to the individual EU nations selecting their EU representatives. Senators did not stand for election or re-election by popular vote.

I would never submit to the current EU configuration if I was an EU citizen, because I would have no voice in the EU government. The US House of Representatives represents the people directly without going through the State government.

There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and 100 Senators (2 per state). The Presidential election is actually 50 separate elections for a slate of delegates (Electors) to who cast their votes in December, not November.

It is analogous to each EU country directly electing a group of delegates who, one month after being elected in their respective nations, convened for the purpose of electing a "President" of the EU. The various candidates for office campaign in each nation asking the voters to elect a slate of delegates who will vote for him at the convention. Each nation receives a minimum of 2 votes, and additional votes based on population.

For example: Suppose the total population of Europe is 380 million and each nation was awarded one vote for every 1 million people of population, plus 2 minimum votes. A nation with 13 million people would receive 13 population votes plus 2 state votes for a total of 15 votes.
Each nation, no matter how small would receive at least 1 population vote. So a country of 300,000 would still receive 3 total votes, and countries with larger population might actually receive votes for every 1.1 million instead of every million. The total number of delegates to the convention would be 380 plus 2 per nation (however many nations currently are part of the EU.)

Whoever wins a majority of the delgates at the convention wins the election. If no one wins an absolute majority, then the vote reverts back to a nation by nation vote, with each national delegation getting only 1 vote. Whoever gets the majority of votes in the second round wins, or the voting continues until one candidate wins a majority.

That is how our system is set up, except for one change. In our system, if no one wins a majority of the delegates at the convention (Electoral College), then the job of the delegates is finished. They do not get to vote in the second round. Rather, the vote goes to the Congress and once again their is a state by state election, but this time, only the Representatives in Congress get to vote, not the people. Each group of representatives from each state decides by majority vote who they will support, then each state selects a member of their group to cast their vote in Congress.

It is very important to note that the Constitution specifically gives ABSOLUTE authority to the National Legislatures and the state legislatures in how to conduct the election. That is why Florida in 2000 was such a fiasco. Up until the Florida Supreme Court ruled, everything was fine. But the Florida Supreme Court violated the US Constituion when it directed the manner of counting votes to be changed. The Florida state constitution was irrelevant to the election, because the US Constitution, which is the law of the land, specifically gives absolute authority to the various state legislatures in how to conduct elections. The Courts have no jurisdiction except that which is delegated by the legislatures, i.e. they have no independent jurisdiction.

Then the US Supreme Court mucked it up even further. They should have instructed the Florida Supreme Court to butt the hell out. But instead, they came up with some assinine incomprehensible decision based on the 14th amendment. But here again, the US Supreme Court actually had no jurisdiction, and the proper decision would have been to declare that fact directly, and also instruct the Florida Supreme court to butt out.

I think the reason they did not is that the courts have arrogated to themselves power which they do not Constitutionally have. To declare that publicly would be to undermine their de facto power to decide issue that they do not have de jure power over.

The US Congress should have strenuously objected to the Supreme Court invading violatiing their authority. But the Congress is filled with spineless wimps who did not want to be held accountable for deciding the election, even though it was their sworn duty to do so.

In the end, no matter which route was taken, Gore would have lost. The best he could do was blur the picture, and make a controversy. Some think that will accrue to the democrats benefit in 2004. But they are forgetting two things.

1) Bush won 30 states to Gore's 20. And the people in those 30 states are still pretty pissed off about Gore trying to smear Bush with the "he stole the election" lie.

2) Those 30 states have 8 more electoral college votes in 2004 than they did in 2000 due to reapportionment after the 2000 election. That means, if the election were to happen in exactly the same way, Bush would win 279 - 259 in 2004, a margin of 20 votes, not 4.

States that are in play in 2004 are Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Maine, Colorado and West Virginia. These 13 are the states that could swing either way.

States that are a Democratic lock in 2004: Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticutt, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii - 13 total states plus DC.

States that are a Republican lock in 2004: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisianna, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska - 24 states.

2004 Election preview: Based on my earlier post,

150 Electoral College votes in play.

186 Democratic Lock (150 popular, 26 state)

202 Republican Lock (154 popular, 48 state)

If you look at the EC vote allocated by popular vote only, you can see it is going to be a close race, but Bush trounces Kerry in the State allocated vote.

I think it is going to be very hard for Kerry to win in Ohio and Florida. That is 47 more votes for Bush bringing him to 249. This means that of the remaining states and the 103 Electoral votes they represent, Bush only need 21 more votes to win. Missouri (11 votes) leans to Bush unless Gephardt is the VP candidate, and Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5) are also leaning Republican. West Virginia (5) and New Hampshire (4) voted Bush in 2000, and Bush won 1 EC vote from Maine (4), but I think he could lose all 10 of those votes this time around. Iowa (7) and Wisconsin (10) only went for Gore by less than 15,000 votes, so Bush could pick them up as well. I think he gets one of the two, probably Iowa.

If you look at the above analysis, Bush needs to win Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. That gets him over the hump. He can trade New Mexico for West Virginia, or for New Hampshire plus 1 vote from Maine. If Bush picks up Pennsylvania (21) or Missouri (11), it is game over for Kerry. In fact Bush can win the election just by getting Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, so expect heavy campaigning in those three states in particular. We will know if Bush easily wins the election once the polls close in the Eastern Time Zone.

Kerry's only hope is to try to pick off Florida, keep Pennsyvlania, and select Gephardt as VP to try to get Missouri.

One other thing to remember. The national polls that you see with Kerry leading Bush right now have absolutely zero substantive meaning. The only polls that matter are the individual state polls. If the national media was competent, they would report the opinion polls on a state by state basis, not a national basis. But they are lazy at this point in the cycle, only reporting the state by state polls of party-line primary voters.

OK, prediction time. Bush wins EC vote 332-206.

With respect to the EC, it's even better (??) than any of the previous folks have stated.

The electors of each state do their thing, and then the STATE ITSELF sends a "certified tally" to Washington. This certified tally is what counts. AFAIK, the electors themselves don't even get together like the Congress does---it's a state by state thing.

"The Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment. The States send one original, along with two authenticated copies or two additional originals to the Archivist of the United States at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) by registered mail."

Funny thing about the 2000 election (to me, at least--I have a wierd sense of humor) was that Florida had sent in its Certificate of Ascertainment while Gore & Co were still squabbling in the courts and the newpapers. The game was over at that point.
The CofA is deemed to be the final word from a state and is presumptively correct and cannot be disputed or be subject to review. Once it is received, it is final.

Scott,

Seriously you don't need to criticise E.U. governance to me. Ireland recently rejected a major E.U. treaty by referendum (not admittedly down to politics, but because everyone was telling us to vote yes. By everyone I mean all the major political parties, the churches and all the political commentators. i think something about that just sticks in an Irishmans craw).

However the government didn't like that, so we had another referendum, with even more campaigning until we got the vote right.

i've always had doubts about the E.U. since.

Some more fun facts:

While the number of electors is equal to the number of Congressmen, no member of the House or Senate may actually BE an elector.

The state legislature is the body that decides the electors. Currently, they all let the people decide by vote, but they could revoke that and make their own decision. The Florida legislature was considering doing just that if the SCOFLA hadn't been slapped down.

If there is a dispute in the electors, the two houses of Congress decide which to accept. Here's where it gets fun. Since Al Gore was still VP until January 20, and the Senate was 50-50 after January 1, he would have the tie-breaking vote, which presumably would have been the slate that would have elected him.

Meanwhile, the House had a Republican majority, so would have likely selected the Bush slate. So the two houses would have disagreed. How do they break the tie? The Governor of the state in question decides.

The Governor, of course, was Jeb Bush, George Bush's brother.

Which way would he decided?

Besides the federal republican justification for the EC, there are some practical advantages:

Each state forms a "firewall." No matter how hard the Daley family tried, they could only steal Illinois' EVs. Indiana and Missouri were safe.

For those who disliked the spectacle of sixty-odd counties in Florida recounting several times and several ways, consider that under a total popular vote system, we could have had recounts in all 13,000 counties in the country. As it was, neither candidate could take a few thousand votes from California or Texas and add them to the Florida total.

bryan asks: "And yes, it does have the right to split into five separate states, but why we'd want to is beyond comprehension."
Because then Texans collectively get eight free electoral votes! It's a huge perk for Texans.

The electoral college is an archaic system that should be replaced. I think it should be based completely on popular vote. That way, if you are a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in New York, your vote counts as much as anyone else's.

I also think there shouls be a runoff. Everyone can vote for whichever candidate they want in the first election, and the top two candidates run in the second election. That way someone can vote for third pary candidates in the first election without not worry about costing a mainstream candidate the victory.

If this was the policy of the 2000 election, then in the first election, more people would have voted for Nader, knowing they weren't costing Gore the election. In the second election, Gore and Bush would be the only two candidates. If this were the policy of the 2004 election, then Bush, Kerry, Dean, Clark, etc would all be candidates in the first election, and the top two candidates would face each other in the second election.

This is the best way to save the two party system, while making it more friendly for third-party candidates.

I also think the polls should close the same time in every state (how about 11PM EST), so that East Coast votes don't count more than West Coast votes.

Well, King Homer nailed it. The Founding Fathers were idiots, why didn't they think of that?