righteousdude2 said:
Could someone please explain to me how and why this nation has allowed the Electoral College to put one candidate in office, when the other candidate has the popular vote? This has always seemed unfair to me, and I wonder why it has not been challenged and ended.
Um, because it is the US Constitution, you think just maybe?
Wonderful document, that is the basis for the United States of America! Ya' might wanna' read it sometime.
Regardless of what you or I may think about any particular "candidate", the Constitution provides us the right to vote by popular vote only for our
Representatives in Congress, ever since the adoption of the Constuitution in
1788, and for our
Senators since
1913.
I'm afraid there are a couple or four unspoken misconceptions you happen to hold regarding the office of the
President, as well as the nation. The first is the idea that the United States is a 'democracy', somehow. Not so. Not now; not then; not ever intended to be. Our nation, as we know it, is a Constitutional, federal, representative republic, since June 21, 1788, effective 1789. (Prior to that from 1777, we were a 'Confederation' of states.)
The second is that we somehow elect a President of "America". Again, not so. He is the President of the
United States of America. All 50 of them.
The third, which you did speak of (and here correctly, I would add) is that the "Electoral College" 'puts the President in office'. Exactly!
Only the (currently 538) Electors have a vote for the President, according to the Constitution. (You and I are afforded no vote for President in any way, by the Constitution.) This number of 538 is equal to the number of Senators (100) and Representatives (435) of all the states plus 3 for the District of Columbia. And the number for any state is equal to the number of Senators and Representatives for that state.
KY, my state has
8 votes, for example.
CA has
55. Both these are consistent with the population of the two states, as of the 2000 Census. (I wonder if either includes illegal immigrants, here, but that is for another time.) All KY's 8 electors (and the 55 of CA) will be awarded to the person who receives the largest number of popular votes in the November election, and the same thing is true in DC, and every other state except for NE and ME, which award two Electoral votes statewide, and the remainder by Congressional District. (BTW, some in CA have proposed the so-named NE plan be adopted there, as well, recently, as well.) I'm fully in favor of that plan being an option to any state that so chooses, but not that it be mandated, as certain proposals have recently been put forth, FTR.
Every state has directed to have the 'popular vote' be the manner of choosing the electors, who then elect the President. And that is how your and my vote 'counts' for President.
Finally, let me say that there is not "an (1) election" that will occur on Nov.4, 2008, but "51 elections" in 50 states and DC.
End of class, Civics 101 for Mar. 8, 2008.
"Class, there will be a test!"
[Edited to add] FTR, and to clear up one misconception, Al Gore did not receive a majority of the popular vote over George Bush for President in 2000, despite the number of claims that that was the case, although he did receive about 540K more popular votes than did President Bush. Nader received over 2.8 M votes; Buchanan received almost 440K; and assorted "Others" received over 610K votes. Over 3.9M votes were cast for candidates other than President Bush and VP Gore, or more that 7 times the number of the difference between the two "major party" candidates.
'Professor' Ed
