Yesterday I got the following question from one of my regular readers:

“Hi Bob,

Can you explain popular vote versus electoral vote?  I don’t quite understand it.”

It had not occurred to me before that many intelligent people may find our electoral system a bit perplexing. But the thought should have crossed my mind. After all, it’s a very strange system indeed, and the confusion is more than understandable. For this reason, I’m happy to explain it. Those of you who already know this stuff; hang on until the end of the article, because at that time, I will add my own critique of our electoral college:

Explanation:

Each state, depending upon its size, gets a certain number of electoral votes. What that means, is that a select group of people, known as electors, vote on behalf of their state. For example, in my own state of California, we have 55 electoral votes. In the next election, they will first take a popular vote. The popular vote comes from every voting resident of California. We go to the polls, we cast our vote, and we see who gets the most, Obama or McCain. Now, each will get millions of votes, but one of the two candidates will come out ahead, maybe even by a small margin. Assuming Obama wins the majority of the popular votes, the 55 California electors will then cast ALL 55 votes for Obama!  This means, even if he beats McCain by only 3 votes, Obama will still get all 55 electoral votes and McCain will get none.  The same is true in every other state. The smaller the state, the smaller the amount of electoral votes.

In summary: Each state chooses its president and sends their electors out to vote on their behalf. The candidate who wins the majority of the states wins the election.

-Winning the majority of the states is the electoral vote.
-The amount of people who voted in every state added up altogether for a grand total across the country is the popular vote.
-It is therefore possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.
-If he loses the electoral vote, he loses the election, even if the majority of Americans voted for him.

Critique:

Although, on a first glance, it would seem that the popular vote is fairer, it may be prudent for us to take a step back and remember that our wise forefathers did not want to see the country ruled by a mob. Although America certainly has elements of a democracy, we were primarily set up to be a republic.  Just parsing that very word republic, representatives (supposedly, ideally) are bringing their wisdom, ethics and experience to Washington on behalf of the public.

In 2000, when Bush won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote, Hillary Clinton immediately went on record to say that the Electoral College should be overhauled, leaving a straight popular vote in its place. This alone should give us pause. Who knew best what was healthy for our country, Thomas Jefferson or Hillary Clinton?

You see, our forefathers were big believers in state’s rights. In essence, they viewed America, not as one country but as a federation of many little countries working together, even though they used word states instead. But what do we call our country at large?  Do we call it America?  No, that is actually the nickname. The true title is The United States of America.  There is a sovereignty that every state is entitled to. That’s why, regardless of its size, every state gets the same number of senators going to Washington. On the other hand, size is still taken into consideration with the House of Representatives, giving the system check and balance.

The rights of states are important in an election as well. Think about it. If we were going for a strict popular vote, how many states would candidates campaign in? They could practically squeak through by campaigning in New York City and Los Angeles alone, where our greatest populations reside.  This means the needs of Wyoming or New Hampshire could be ignored. Campaign promises could be withheld from smaller populations and whole states left out of the process.

When I was in High School and College, I thought I knew everything. I don’t know nearly as much today as I did back then. Back in my youth, I would have said, “Let’s switch to a popular vote.” That sounded good. I even wrote a paper about it as a High School senior. I suppose the paper was well written enough. Only one problem: I simply did not know what I was talking about.

This is Bob Siegel, attempting to make the incredibly complex, confusing election obvious.

Share this on