The Electoral College is an indirect election. In other words, ordinary citizens of the
In this process it is understood in many states that winner takes all. Most states allow voters to choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for the Presidential and Vice Presidential tickets of various parties; the ticket that receives the most votes statewide 'wins' all of the votes cast by electors from that state. And electors are not obligated to stick with a particular party. Strategically a candidate can concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally. Interestingly, a president can lose the popular vote yet still win the presidency. This is what happened in 2000 with George W. Bush.
What I found even more interesting was that a lot of people, both young and old did not know of the Electoral College or its role. They actually believe that they directly vote for the president and most were more observant of the November election, than the election of congress members, who, unlike the president can be directly voted for by the public.
My concern or questions are: is this (Electoral College) an outdated system that needs to be replaced in order to put more power in the hands of the people? Should there be more effort by the government in shedding light on the Electoral College and its role as there is on the presidential election?
15 comments:
This is a very interesting issue. I'm afraid I have limited expertise on this subject--though a political scientist might be able to better respond to Kerry Ann's summary of the history and query. A quick internet search reveals that there are organized groups working on electoral college reform. I also found this "CRS Report for Congress" (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/82468.pdf) which you might find of interest. I wonder who benefits from the status quo, and in what specific ways would those who are vested in the current system lose out if there were reform?
It's clear why you brought this up now--given that we're in this presidential campaign season with the election coming up soon. But I wonder how this relates to the topics we're covering in class and in the readings, or to issues related to the internships. I'm struggling to find the connections. Any ideas???!!
--Prof. Waterston
I wrote on this topic not only because it is of interest to me, but also because there is a historical political process that is taking place right now. I think politics affect every single one of us in a fundamental way, and the more we understand the process the better we are able to assert our attention to issues, such as incarceration, Justices that are appointed by Presidents (their rulings affect our lives), health care, council men and women running for office and whether their values are align with ours. In addition, I understood that this blog is to express whatever interest the person who is responsible for posting the blog of the week, perhaps I may have misunderstood. I also wanted to shed light on the Electoral College, as I think enough is not said or understood about it. Lastly, I wanted to hear everyone's input on the role of the Electoral College and whether it is an out dated process; why or why not.
I gave the example of President Bush losing the popular vote in 2000, yet winning the presidency. A lot of people were scratching their heads trying to figure out how this could have happened. Evidently, the Electoral College had a significant role to play in that outcome.
In thinking about this issue, I revisited the core values of Democracy. I might be wrong, but I think that all of the core values exist in order to make the people trust in the government, yet the existence of a system such as the Electoral College seems to indicate that the government does not have trust in the people.
Of course the all important question (asked by Prof. Waterston): who is benefiting from this set up? Those who are in power want to keep that power. Now, it’s a matter of opinion of if those in power are working for the majority interest, or for the interest of the few.
My knowledge of the Electoral College is limited but I think this is a significant issue, especially with this year's elections. I know there are many organizations who wish to completely abolish the Electoral College. I see little sense in a voting process as confounding is this one. Popular vote clearly expresses the opinion of the nation, and it should not be ignored. The electoral process is only to benefit the congressman and other elected officials who are doing the actual voting.
I agree with Amanda that the core values of our government include the right to vote and express our opinion. The Electoral College has essentially reworked the voting process to their benefit. With the Electoral College, the government can keep the popular vote in check. Particularly since many people are unaware of the college, it limits the freedom of exercising the power of being a citizen, since citizens are not even aware of the limitations.
Arguments over the electoral college have blossomed since the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, although anger may have been better directed at the Court then the college. The electoral college was established- not because the founders did not trust the people- but because they feared that more populous states would have an unfair advantage over rural ones. In other words, applied to today's population distribution, the electoral college keeps New York and California from deciding the presidency.
On the other hand, there is a definite downside to the college's winner take all system: 1) since each state has the same number of electors (the number of Senators plus the number of Representatives) whether or not voter turnout is large, it may actually diminish the incentive to vote and 2) it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for a third party candidate to win.
These are compelling problems but one must weigh them against the idea that a direct popular vote tends to reflect even less of a distribution of the popular will because it keeps the less populous states out of the mix. So, if one core value of democracy is that all voices be heard, this may be a better, although clearly imperfect, system.
It would be interesting for all of you who work directly with clients to ask whether or not they have ever voted, and whether they are registered to do so now. The Supreme Court has put up all kinds of additional obstacles to voters lately, with immigrants, people who have had to relocate because of home foreclosure or hurricane, and former inmates potentially being the most disenfranchised. Most of my students have told me that they are not registered to vote. A mandated for treatment client said that he thought that Obama had already won the Presidency. Frontline social activism at this point can consist of each of us explaining to those we come in contact with that WE ARE STAKEHOLDERS in this most important election. The government has a big stake, clearly, in silencing some voices; voting is one of the ways to fight that.
Kerry-Ann, I think you raised a good point: that as a society we know little about our voting process. I know I learned about it in American History class in high school, and maybe the media will do a little refresher course, but we probably aren't well educated about how elections work unless we actively seek the information ourselves.
I know a few people who stopped voting when they 'learned' about the electoral college:
"Well, we don't really vote for our president anyway. It's just for show"
Misinformation about how the process works maybe discourages some people from participating but I also think misinformation about what our rights are can keep some eligible folks home on election day.
Some friends and I were watching the debate last Friday and we were talking about voting. It was startling to find out how many of us in the room and our close friends could not vote in the Nov. election. Although some folks weren't citizens and some folks weren't 18 yet, felony conviction posed the biggest barrier. We- even those with convictions- didn't know their voting rights, or even an easy accurate way to find out.
P.S. Personally, I am okay with the Electoral College.
The electoral college is something that has bothered me for years. While many Americans are unaware of this process, I do not feel like it is a secret; it is something commonly taught even in elementary school classrooms.
We as country tend to glorify the presidential election. Voting for the President is a vital and emphasized (possibly even over-emphasized) component of democracy. I do not mean to undermine the importance of voting for President, everyone should vote regardless of whether or not we really "decide". However, a conversation with my friends lead to a discussion of the importance of voting in local elections.
Voting in local elections is often an overlooked way of seeing the direct benefits of voting. Myself and many, many people I know are guilty of not utilizing the right to vote in this way. These chances to vote happen much more frequently and allow for us to see how voting can really impact the community.
In contrast, Presidential elections happen every four years and draw excessive publicity. Despite this publicity, most of us are not directly effected by the president in office (yet another factor inhibiting people from voting}; changes at a national level take time.
To answer Kerry-Ann's question, I think that we need to work on eliminating the electoral college, but feel that this is something that will take time. In the meantime, we need to stress the importance of voting in local elections, where there is no electoral college and citizens can see the effects much sooner that in Presidential elections.
I agree with Prof. Stein on the electoral college. The electoral college is imperfect but it is a better method than a direct vote. In reality, I believe it is only thirty percent of the country that actually votes in the election process. Let us not forget that many of the disadvantaged individuals we speak about such as immigrants and poor people do not politically exist. Have you ever heard about a President come and speak to the South Bronx while campaigning?
I also want to shed light on the direct voting. How are we so sure that the results would be any different even if we had a direct vote. In order to win any election, one needs millions of dollars to campaign. Maybe the problem is not the electoral college but that the presidental race is really a popularity contest that has very little to do with real political policies. I have been listening to Obama and Mccain and honestly they give generalized statements when it comes to implementing real policies.
Everyone has made interesting arguements to their opinions. I personally feel that the electoral college is an unfair system because candidates can fail to get the most votes in the nationwide popular vote in a Presidential election and still win that election.As for example, last election Gore won the majority of the votes, however George Bush was selected by the electoral college. I feel that the publics majority vote should have the final decision in who should win the presidency. Not to direspect any people in favor of Republicans but, can we just imagine how different things could have been (in a much more positive manner) if Al Gore did actually win? If we allow the people's vote to be the final decision maker we could eventually see much more positive changes in our society.
Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people, under a free electoral system. A representive democracy is the ruling of the majority by a minority with the majority’s consent. Fair elections are an important process in representative democracies. In a country were the final vote for presidency doesn’t reflect the vote of majority, the whole democratic system is endangered. Voting is the only process that allows citizens to participate in the political decision making process. I think is outrageous that in a presidential system, citizens are not allowed to choose their own president. Even though at times the Electoral College vote may be a reflection of the population wish, it takes away the voting privilege of citizens. If the President is not elected by the majority of the population, he may encounter problems in getting their support.
Society punishes its ex-offenders by taking away their right to vote. This proves once more the importance society gives to the voting process. I believe that all American citizens over 18 years old, with few exceptions should have the right to choose their future president.
Justices are indeed nominated by the President, but they need to be confirmed to sit on the Court by the U.S. Senate. Also, American democraticy is based on the check and balance system. The three important powers Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary are separated to protect liberty and avoid tyranny. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Therefore, the president should have little influence on issues, such incarceration.
I am so glad Maureen mentioned local elections. I have been questioned so many times as to why I "bother" voting in local elections- especially since I live somewhere different than where I am registered to vote. Time and time again I have tried to explain the importance of voting in local elections and how those elections impact the Presidential election.
People typically want to participate in the "biggest" or "most important" election,the Presidential election, and fail to realize that to effect real change they need to start at the "bottom" (or local elections) and participate in the entire process.
In my attempt to make a connection here . . . I think this idea of breaking down the process and beginning on a smaller scale applies to many of the problems we face in the criminal justice system. We can't just arrest fewer people, or release more people from prison, but rather we have to look at local communities and change their structures.
I appreciate that this topic was brought up because despite the controversy around the Electoral College, its mechanics remain vague to me. Indirect democracy is not an unheard of system, and is not necessarily bad. I feel that those who are concerned with voting (from local to national levels) will eventually become aware of the Electoral College. However, most of the population doesn’t vote. The unfortunate lack of interest of most of the population makes me feel that there shouldn’t be efforts to put the power back in the hands of the people.
I don’t believe that the popular vote is necessarily an accurate representation of the population. I hope that the majority of the time our election process is successful in electing the candidate that has the most support. However, especially in elections as close as the recent ones, I place more value on our system of checks and balances which keeps any party or branch of government from becoming too powerful.
These are particularly interesting comments in light of today's news about Michael Bloomberg seeking a third term -- and possibly able to get past the term limits w/out a popular election. It's interesting whether one is a Bloombergian or not as it illustrates how one attempt to solve a problem in good faith can lead to unforeseen future problems. For example, term limits were introduced (they were not part of the original political picture; everyone was SHOCKED when George Washington stepped down after two -- he could have easily been President for life) to protect us against bad or mediocre leaders staying in power indefinitely. But they just as easily work to get great people out of office (Bloomberg, some would say) in the name of an abstract principle of democracy. Do we really want to limit the service of our extraordinary leaders?
Similarly, the Electoral College went down in the very worst way in the 2000 election, but in theory it can protect us from some charismatic but empty (or worse) leader who just mysteriously appeals to people (Sarah Palin anyone?) and racks in the popular vote. Checks and balances, I guess.
Like Amanda wrote, in the efforts to make a connection, it does seem like social solutions at one point in time/space can be almost unthinkably dreadful in others. Housing projects? Busing?
Post a Comment