After nearly 30 years of voting in Presidential elections, I still have a
tough time understanding how the Electoral College thing works. Maybe it's
a kind of cognitive dissonance - but anyway, it has been explained a lot in
the past few weeks and I think I'm finally starting to "get" it. It still
seems kind of weird to me so I thought I'd share an article from CNN for
those who also have a tough time with it like I do. Sorry in advance to
those who are bored by this. Kakki
*********
Think you're voting for president? Think again
Electoral college system understood by few
>From Garrick Utley/CNN
November 2, 2000
NEW YORK (CNN) -- If you think you are going to cast a vote for one of the
presidential candidates, think again -- and look again at the small print on
the ballot of that state.
We are, lest we forget, voting for an elector, and they will elect the
president. Luther Mook, for instance, will do the electing if George W. Bush
wins in New York state.
"The electoral college has been here since the beginning of our country.
People are still unfamiliar with it," he said.
Martin Connor will cast his electoral vote if Al Gore wins New York state.
"It's not a secret vote, really ... You literally line up, as the roll is
called, and drop the paper ballot into the ballot box for president," he
said.
The 538 electors are spread among states according to the number of each
state's representatives and senators in Washington. Maine and Nebraska
divide their electoral vote according to the results in each congressional
district, but everywhere else, it's winner-take-all.
How did we get this system?
"We're in a republic, not a democracy. The founders were very careful to say
they were worried about allowing people to directly elect representatives,"
said Dr. David Epstein, a political science professor at Columbia
University.
When the framers of the Constitution debated how to elect a president, there
were no political parties, no national campaigns, and there was concern that
regional candidates would splinter a popular vote for president and trigger
weak chief executives.
But there were potential faults in the system. The last time that was
evident was in 1888, when Grover Cleveland, a Democrat running for
re-election, narrowly won the popular vote. But Benjamin Harrison won more
electoral votes by winning -- by slight margins -- in a number of key
states.
"If we had that again, where somebody won the election without winning the
popular vote, the system would be changed in an instant," said Epstein.
One reason it has not been changed yet is that the Electoral College favors
the interests of the two dominant parties. In 1992, Ross Perot won 19
percent of the people's votes and zero electoral college votes.
If that offers less choice for voters, it does provide for a stable and
predictable two-party system that forces Republicans and Democrats to
broaden their appeal by avoiding more extreme positions. It also forces
candidates to conduct 51 campaigns -- one in each state and the District of
Columbia.
And so, the real presidential election will take place on the Monday
following the second Wednesday of December, as 538 men and women -- most of
whom are totally unknown to the American public -- gather in their
respective state capitals and cast their ballots. Is there a chance that
some might shift their votes? It has happened -- nine times -- but it has
never affected the outcome of an election, which is announced in Congress in
early January.
And this January, there will be someone new taking the oath of office,
elected for the people, by the people -- and the 538 members of the
Electoral College
