I just explained the electoral college to my British husband. He is appalled!

[Phillycat]

He's a smart guy and had a general idea about what it was, but wasn't clear on how a candidate could win the popular vote and still lose the election. When I explained the whole "winner takes all" thing and how ALL a state's electoral votes go to the winning candidate, even when they were only 50.1% the winner or whatever, his mouth dropped open and he said, "But that's utter bollocks! Then your vote doesn't even count!" I said, "I know." He said, "But then how do you explain to young adults that they should vote? If they're not in the majority in their state, their vote is meaningless." I said, "Well actually, your vote is pretty much meaningless if you're in the strong majority, too. The only time your vote is really worth anything is in a contested state, and even then, you have no idea if it will be counted, what with paperless voting and all." "But that's madness!" my husband exclaimed.

"Yep. Welcome to America."

He paused.

"We're leaving."

[rucky]

1. Bullocks!

a word I don't hear nearly enough.

[librechik]

2. did you mention it's because of slavery?

and the slaveholding states needed a way to count the slaves so that they didn't get a whole vote?

God. This country really sucks.

[Bucky]

um... uh...

Call your history and government teachers and apologize for not paying attention in class.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. You're thinking of the three fifths clause. The EC had to do with a percieved inability of voters to make judgments on candidates based only on newspapers and the fear of a demogogue lying his way into office. Not that the plan worked, mind you...

[aquart]

6. They didn't know about television. Give the founding fathers a break.

The concept of TV advertising hadn't even been invented.

[Bucky]

10. Remember that at that time, most electoral districts only had a few hundred voters

The notion that a district with ten of thousands of people in it was pretty radical. They'd be appalled at a single district being composed of 650,000 Americans. How can you determine who the best candidate is under those circumstances?

[librechik]

8. ok, but read this first (esp second pp)

"Those who opposed direct election said, "The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." Others thought the large size of the country "renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the Candidates..."

"The real sticking point against direct election came from Southern states who feared being at a disadvantage since part of their population, slaves, was forbidden from voting..."

also

"Amendments calling for a direct popular vote had also been introduced as early as 1816, but for most of our history such proposals were doomed by a stark political reality: The South would never accept them. The issue was not small states versus big states but slavery and racial discrimination.

"Before the Civil War, the "three-fifths compromise" in the Constitution meant that slaves counted (as three-fifths of a person) towards a state's representation in Congress and thus in the Electoral College. Had the president been elected by a popular vote, Southern influence would have shrunk sharply, limited to the number of votes actually cast."


much more at link

[intheflow]

17. You forgot the link.

I'd like to see that whole article.

[librechik]

19. sorry; here you go

http://www.iwantmyvote.com/justice/electoral_college/

one of many if you google "slavery" and "electoral college"

[intheflow]

25. Thanks!

Off to read up on a little history. :hi:

[Bucky]

3. Did you point out to him how wrong and corrupt that Tea Tax was? Huh? Didja?

I have a little bit of a problem letting go of old arguments.

[Phillycat]

4. LOL!

We just went to Boston, and he was more fascinated with Revolutionary War history than I was, and I'm a geek! He loves this country, believe me. He just can't believe we have such a stupid fucking system. He said, "In England, you go down, and there's a whole bunch of old ladies, and you go behind the shower curtain with your bit of paper and your pencil, and you make an X. And then when the winning guy gets up and says, 'I won this election with however many votes', you know your vote was one of them!"

He's very cute. :D

[Xipe Totec]

5. Apparently so.

:rofl:

[NanceGreggs]

9. My second husband was a Brit ...

My uncle was visiting us from NYC at the same time my Brit in-laws were visiting from England.

When my uncle asked for some tea, my mother-in-law was appalled that I served it in a cup, instead of a teapot with a "cozy". She made quite a fuss about it, fuming about how Americans don't know how to properly handle tea.

After she left the kitchen, my uncle said, "Man, talk about holding a grudge! They're just never gonna let that Boston Harbor thing go, are they?"

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Did you tell him the history, that there wouldn't be a United States if at the

Constitutional Convention that if the more populous states would have said no to the electoral college the less populous states would have walked?

Did you also tell him that winner take all is a function of the states, not the electoral college, which is why the Repos in CA are trying to pass an initiative to make CA like Maine, and a couple of other states and award electoral votes by congressional district?

[Ravy]

11. It is each STATE that apportions their vote. Not all are winner take all. nt

[Phillycat]

13. 48 of 50 are winner take all

[Ravy]

24. Yes, but that is up to the state, not the electoral college.

Granted, the way most states choose their electors is sort of self-defeating for democracy, but overall, I think the electoral college itself is a good idea. It is a compromise between every state having equal say and states having clout based on population.

[razzleberry]

12. BTW, how much does a peerage cost these days? n/t

[Phillycat]

14. Nobody's system is perfect. But ours is FUCKED, was my point.

[rinsd]

15. Strange he would be that upset, considering his vote has little bearing on the prime minister.

[Phillycat]

16. The Prime Minister is not remotely equivalent to the President.

[enlightenment]

18. Interesting reaction some of the posters here are having . . .

almost a knee-jerk response to the fact that a Brit is critical of the system. Guess we're still fighting that revolution on some level. :eyes:

Your hubby might enjoy How Democratic is the American Constitution? by Robert Alan Dahl - a short but brilliant study of the document.

[Phillycat]

23. I know!

I post something lighthearted, and all the teeth and knives come out. I always forget how nasty the GD forums are. Back to the Lounge with me! :D

[Apollo11]

20. The same problem exists in the UK

When it comes to electing a government in the UK, it regularly happens that the biggest party gets more than 60% of the seats in the House of Commons, despite receiving around 40% of the popular vote.

This is because each constituency elects 1 MP to the House of Commons. But in most constituencies you have at least 3 serious candidates. So in many cases the winning candidate receives less than 50% of the vote in their constituency. Even if it is a sitting MP running for re-election.

If the biggest party has the majority of seats in the House of Commons, then the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister and gets to appoint all the Ministers in the national government.

The Prime Minister does have a lot of power. In theory, she or he can declare war or decide on military action without first seeking the approval of Parliament.

Most constituencies are considered "safe" seats for one or other party. Although it does sometimes happen that a seat that was once considered a "safe" Conservative seat is won by a candidate from the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats.

So your vote only really counts if you are living in a so-called marginal constituency (the equivalent of living in a swing state). End even then - you won't get any special attention unless you are a swing voter (or "floating voter" in the UK jargon).

[JCMach1]

21. Oh please, a country without a real constitution and men dressing-up in funny robes

oh, and women too... not to mention a 'monarch' who has her speech written by whatever upper-class twit happens to convince his buds he is top dog...

Ha, I laugh in your general direction... and I spit on your so-called democracy!

[IsItJustMe]

22. Lighten up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JCMach1]

26. Hey come on... was sarcasm

:)