Another question for American Mumsnetters (sorry)

[stickynote]

I've heard so many explanations of how the Presidential election works and I STILL don't understand. Would someone please explain it in simple terms for me?

TIA

The president is voted in by the Electoral College, not by the people. Each state has one Electoral College vote for each member of the House of Representativesand each US senator; there are 538 votes in total in the Electoral College, and the winner (in a two horse race) needs to get 270 EC votes. Simple enough, eh?

The thing that makes it interesting is that each state gives their entire EC allocation to the candidate who gets the most votes in their state. So, say California, the biggest state with 55 EC votes has one candidate winning the popular election by a very narrow margin, that candidate still gets 55 EC votes. That's why the election is focussed on the biggest states.

Anyway, the popular election happens tomorrow and a couple of weeks later, the Electoral College gets together to formally elect the president.

Thanks very much for that - I understand!

But what I don't understand is why this system of election has evolved i.e. why not add up the votes each candidate receives countrywide?

History

If only they had done it that way in 2000 stickynote, Al Gore would have won...

In a way it's a bit like the British system in that it's not true proportional representation. That's why you'll hear people talk about the "popular vote", ie. who got the most votes overall (Al Gore in 2000).

Does it make voters feel their votes are unimportant though?

I'm sure that voters who live in states that aren't close feel like their votes don't count.
I guess it would be like in England if you lived in an area that was certain to elect a labour MP and you were a Tory, or vice versa.

But after 2000 when the Presidency was decided on a few hundred votes here in Florida I think most people realise how important each vote is, and hopefully the turnout will be greater this time.

There's a parallel with the British system in that all that matters is winning a constituency - doesn't matter by how much. However, in the UK, constituencies are all roughly the same size and the boundaries keep changing to maintain this. In the US, some states are tiny and others are huge. There's also the issue of 3 or 4 main parties in the UK, which changes things a lot.

Further comment from DH says that the EC system gives more power to smaller states in that they get more EC seats than their populations dictates. I don't see how these smaller states can stand up to the big five, but I'm not going to argue with DH about it! If the system changed, then so would voting patterns, therefore reform might not bring on the kind of changes you'd maybe hope for.

The main reason for not going with pure popular vote is that electing the president is a state responsibility and not a federal one.

Actually, the states can pick electors however they want. 47 of them are all-or-nothing for the candidate who won the state. 2 of them assign electors to districts within the state and will therefore almost always split up between the candidates. And Colorado is currently all-or-nothing but is voting tomorrow on whether to go proportional (which could change the outcome of the election).

The original 13 colonies were very disparate in population; pure voting would have meant New York always got to pick the president, so the electoral college system (and the rule that the president and vice president must be from diferent states) was invented to even things out some. It doesn't exactly even them out these days, but it does make them less predictable -- even Hawaii, which often doesn't get to start voting before the winner is known, is important this year!

Maine and Nebraska are the two states that currently allocate some of their EC votes to districts (2 votes go to the winner of the popular vote and the other 2 or 3 are allocated to districts). These states have never split their EC votes, although this year could be the first.

Colorado is an interesting one - it's controversial, and if it passes, it is valid for this election. With 9 EC votes, expected to go 5:4, it could decide the election. If this happens, there are likely to be the same kind of lawsuits as was seen in 2000.

Here's a good article