Electoral College FAQs
I just fielded a phone call from a man who was waiting to pick up his grandson from college to vote for the first time. The grandson, the man said, had a lot of questions about the Electoral College that he didn't have the answers to. He found some of them in the handy-dandy chart on page 11 of today's Sun, but still had a few more. He asked that I post the answers on the web just in case anyone else is curious.
1. How do they decide how many electoral votes each state gets?
The electoral votes are apportioned based on a state's representation in Congress -- one for each member of the House and one for each Senator. So, Maryland, with eight congressmen, gets 10 electoral votes.
That means the votes are roughly apportioned based on population, though some quirks distort the system a bit. Each state has at least one member of the House and two Senators, so the minimum for any state to have is three electoral votes. A semi-exception to the rule is Washington D.C., which has no senators and one non-voting member of the House but gets three electoral votes anyway.
2. How many people are represented by one elector?
Because small states have a disproportionate influence in the electoral college (the result of the two votes for senators and the minimum of one member of the House) the number of people per elector varies widely. The New York Times printed an interesting op-ed on the topic over the weekend, including a map showing exactly how much a vote is worth in each state. In Montana, for example, one electoral vote corresponds to about 135,000 people, but an electoral vote from Florida accounts for about 480,000 people. Not quite one man, one vote.
3. What happens if there's a tie?
In a further bit of genius in the system, there are 538 electoral votes, so a tie is possible. In that case, the decision goes to the House of Representatives. But it's not a straight vote of the House -- each state delegation gets a vote. So, theoretically, the states with even numbers of electors could also deadlock, leading to what would no doubt be an ugly fight. In another odd quirk, the Senate gets to choose the vice president, so, theoretically, you could wind up with a president and vice president of different parties.








Comments
Why not just asking counting 1 vote = 1 US citizen choice, end of story?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 4, 2008 8:56 PM
Gotta love our educational system here in the States. The kid has already started college and yet still doesn't understand our presidential voting system. As for the idea of the House and Senate picking in case of a tie, perhaps we should just do it that was from the get go. As biased at it could turn out, at least we'd get to pick the people who do the actual voting and know who they are and how they voted. It'd certainly make the race for House and Senate alot more involved.
Posted by: Ryan | November 4, 2008 8:56 PM
Why do we bother to vote at all. Every election is called for each state as soon as the polls close. This is CRAZY. It has gone on so long I am convinced it is a waste time to vote. There is no way every vote counts if the race is called at closing of the polls. When are people going to wise up and get Washington to revise the system???? This needs to be done.
Posted by: Sandy | November 4, 2008 9:27 PM
What I want to know is who or what decides the electoral vote. If the Popular vote only means a percentage of the actual election, what is the point of driving to the polls to cast a vote that doesn't matter.
Posted by: Rodney | November 4, 2008 9:46 PM
The only reason for the system to remain the same is because it is an open door for people in power that allowed manipulation when the opportunity approaches. This is a country dictated by two parties in control of the super-structure of the skeleton that composes the nation. But I hope the wind for a change starts to blow in all direction so finally all citizens of this nation are respected in the way they deserve.
Posted by: Eramis Cruz | November 4, 2008 9:58 PM
If I go and vote a minute before the polls close and a minute after I am told who my state elected, why should I vote? How can they count the votes that fast? Did my vote really count? I think not. Let's get rid of the electoral college way of electing our presidents.
Posted by: Carmen Ehlers | November 4, 2008 10:04 PM
I would say aside from dealing with revising the electoral votes, there should be a law banning projections from major news players. Our media plays the cards they want by updating in an uneven fashion the results to make it look favorable to a specific candidate.
Posted by: Brian Jensen | November 4, 2008 10:16 PM
I wish they would do away with the electoral college. Its not a fair way of voting. Lets say for easy math here that every state has one million voters in it and every person in each state votes there should be fifty million votes. This is the only way to assure every vote counts. The way it is now makes me not want to vote in presidential elections because of the college. A movement or something needs to take place to do away with the college.
Posted by: Bri | November 4, 2008 10:38 PM
It's pretty despicable that this country still uses the outdated and archaic electoral college system, forged from the days when traveling long distances to cast one's vote was next to impossible for most folks. Nowadays, with the electronic age making our so-called "one-man / one vote" farce a potential reality, the powers-that-be should be hard-pressed to find any viable reasons for the electoral college system to continue. But as it's been said many times before, it's a system that invites and even encourages corruption, and anyone who watched the 2000 election that GW Bush and his brother Jeb stole could testify to that! For that reason alone, I imagine the outdated electoral college will continue to reign supreme, and the popular, "people's" vote (the true 1:1 measure of citizens to cast ballots) will continue to be discounted. What an utter joke--- with our beloved 'democracy' as the butt....
Posted by: Brent Beasley | November 4, 2008 10:38 PM
First off...I want to say that I am 35 and this is the first time I voted. Before everyone jumps on me...let me get my point.
The voting stuff has always been so confusing. This year I did absentee vote so I can research all people and subjects before making a choice. Not just President. I sent my ballot in about a week and a half ago and then more information started coming out about things. I immediately found myself regretting some of the votes I cast.
Then I start to learn more about the Electoral College. While I see that my vote might count in local elections...why did I have to vote for the President when they don't count it? In my state, it will take up to 1-2 weeks before all ballots are counted. How could the "Electoral Votes" for our state even be announced when over 1/2 of the votes are not even counted yet?
This is very frustrating and can be very discouraging for voters and puts out that "my vote won't count" attitude. That is how I am feeling right now.
After doing research and finding out that in 2000, Gore actually had the popular vote but Bush won.
Why should I waste my time?
My state even has announced the Governor's winner with less than 47% of the votes counted. She is winning by 6% but they are having trouble with one county who is a strong supporter for the other person running and don't have any numbers from there yet. (large county too).
I think we need to re-think the way we vote. Media needs to back off and wait to announce anything until it's official and we need to go back to the majority rules. This is not the 1960's anymore!
Posted by: Kim | November 5, 2008 3:13 AM
Just to make a correction...I said it's not the 1960's...I meant 1700's. I am not that big of an idiot. lol
Posted by: Kim | November 5, 2008 3:28 AM
The electoral college has seemed archaic to me since I first learned about it in school.
Now with the media coloring states red and blue, the system seems exceedingly divisive. Who wants to live in a red state or a blue state? And what about all those in that state who voted differently from the majority in that state?
If 60% of the voters in a state vote red/blue, that leaves 40% whose votes are disregarded.
The election was over on Tuesday at the precise time that polls closed on the West coast.
Each vote should be sought for equally in advance; each vote should count equally on election day.
Perhaps we now have an administration that can truly unite the country, to dissolve these and other lines that divide.
This is one of the things that needs to be fixed.
It's time.
Posted by: Jeanie Marshall | November 5, 2008 3:41 AM
Yes, the United States should get rid of the Electoral Votes. The media sure favored the person that won!!! I PRAY for our country to come together, and let's see if the war ends as promised.
Posted by: Shirley | November 5, 2008 7:55 AM
There have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different.
https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html
Posted by: Mike | November 5, 2008 9:01 AM
reading so much ignorance here, stop being so lazy use this vast limitless tool of obtaining information do some research use the internet!
cantg help but belive the majority of posters are mccainiacs maybe even racists
Posted by: Ignoranceisbliss | November 5, 2008 12:24 PM
Mike....please, were all of those people screaming about the Electoral College in 2000 or 2004 racists? Seriously...Although the electoral college seems antiquated, we need to remember that the U.S. is not a true Democracy, but rather we are a limited republic. Check http://chezjacq.com/repubic.htm for some easy to understand definitions. The framers of the constitution did not inherently trust the American people to make educated choices, therefore the Electoral College was put in place to ensure "proper" decisions. Essentially it was to prevent a 'mobocracy'. This was due to the Founding Fathers' fear that democracy unhindered by checks could get out of control. Look at what happened with the "election" of Hammas. That is an extreme example of the populace run amok. Given this day and age I honestly do not know if the Electoral College is still relevant, but my gut feeling is that it is, simply because of some of the idiotic reasons people choose their candidate, and once the "leaches" among us = +50% of the voting public, the US will become nothing but a welfare state.
John-
Posted by: John | November 5, 2008 2:21 PM
Across America there are 538 citizens and each is entrusted with the sacred duty of protecting American Democracy. The Electoral College - The Penultimate Firewall to Electoral Fraud. Will one step up to join Philip Berg?
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/the-electoral-college-the-penultimate-firewall-to-electoral-fraud/
Posted by: ZachJonesIsHome | November 6, 2008 6:57 AM
All the maps I've seen indicate Obama won 364 EC votes and McCain won 173 EC votes, which adds up to 537. Your FAQs above indicates 538 total votes- where is the extra vote?
Thanks
Posted by: Ric battershell | November 7, 2008 10:46 AM
The reason only 237 electoral votes are accounted for so far is that one vote is still outstanding in Nebraska. (Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that don't have winner-take-all electoral vote systems.) The 2nd Congressional district there, centered on Omaha, has been hotly contested by the two campaigns, and so far, it's still too close to call.
If Obama picks it up, it would mark the first time Nebraska had actually split its electoral votes -- previously, the winner of the state had also won in each congressional district.
Posted by: Andy Green | November 7, 2008 11:08 AM