How does the Electoral College system give small states a strong voice?
105697
It makes the election boil down to 50 votes. 1 from each state. a small state, or low populated state still counts as 1 vote as does a large state.
124688
This is a good subject I would love to see some debate on.  My first thought is we should elimnate electoral vote and go with the majority vote. But that would mean the east and west coast would pretty much decide who/what gets elected.  With the elctoral vote every state has a say.  Id love to see some answers on this question.
863325
depends on the state or local laws.  for presidential elections, it still epends on the state laws.  sometimes people are on the ballot in one state but not the other.
560078
It is an excellent idea and one that really came to the fore after the 2000 election debacle in which the US Supreme Court prevented the majority of Americans from having the President (Al Gore) they elected. I did copious research during that hateful period and I can tell you that jimbob is correct: abolishing the antiquated Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment, which itself requires 3/4 (state legislatures) and 2/3 (House and Senate) voting majorities that are all but impossible to achieve. I don't see this happening, at least not in my lifetime.\n\nBut there is an alternative.\n\nIn lieu of abolishing the flawed Electoral College altogether, we would have a much fairer and more representative system if we adopted proportional allocation of each state's electoral votes. Under the present system, which exists in every state except Maine and Nebraska, it is winner take all. That is to say, if candidate A gets 50.1% of the votes to candidate B's 49.9%, candidate A gets ALL of that state's electoral votes. This is patently unfair and hardly "representative" of the actual voting tallies. \n\nIn Maine and Nebraska, it is a plurality system and the votes are determined proportionally. Ergo, in a state with 10 electoral votes, if candidate A gets 60% to candidate B's 40%, A will get 6 of that state's votes while B will get 4. This is clearly more fair and balanced (fox news does NOT own that expression, oxymoronically or otherwise) and actually upholds and sustains the protections the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they designed the Electoral College voting system (i.e., giving equal merit to tiny states as to more populous ones). Btw, had Florida had such a system in 2000, Al Gore would have won the presidency quite handily as the electoral votes would have broken down to 13-12 instead of bush getting all 25 (illegally or nay). A similar scenario would have occurred in Ohio in 2004, thus giving Kerry enough votes to defeat bush. Detecting a pattern here?\n\nI hope this all sounds more clear than it appears to my bloodshot eyes as I type, re-read and edit this. I've had a very trying week and am running on fumes just now. The bottom line is that proportional distribution of each state's electoral votes would be an vast improvement on the current system while retaining the original intent of the Framers. I can't believe any fair minded person would find cause to argue with that result, irrespective of party affiliation (or, in my case, lack of same).\n\nOh, and it is true that the US of A is not in fact a democracy. It is rather a representative republic -- and what we require is a much fairer system of representation. I do hope all of this makes sense... to someone... anyone?
62688
They are actually voting for electors in the electoral college. In most tates, the electors are required to cast a vote for whatever candidate won the popular vote in that state.
46726
No, the electoral college was put there for a reason.  It balances sheer population with fair representation, much as the Senate and House of Representatives do for our legislative branch.  With the electoral college in place it is harder for, say, the largest cities in the country to overwhelm the vote and elect a candidate.  Thus, a candidate must appeal to the country as a whole.  The electoral college also prevents a candidate who is unqualified from being elected.  For example, if the "Hank The Angry Drunken Dwarf" campaign ever could muster a majority, he would never be sworn in because those in the Electoral College would not vote for him.\n\nIn short, the Electoral College serves as a buffer against the sometimes unrational whims of the masses.
709192
Well, with our current system, your vote really doesn't count much. Especially in Presidential elections. The Electoral College is a huge disaster for MANY reasons, and has got to got. Evidence: George Bush is president.
472028
They (PAS) can rule other states.... just that they have to win the election first... :)
201017
Well it would be nice to say that it is based of population and stuff but in reality when one party has control of the general assembly they will redraw the districts in a way that is favorable for that party to win in future elections.
926839
The parties (Democrat and Republican) vote for their candidate they want to represent them!  The electoral college has a certain number of people according to the size of their state.  It adds up to 536 and the candidate needs 270 votes to win.  They try to get to get the higher populated states such as Florida, California, Ohio, and Texas so they win.  I believe the voter's votes are factored in also.
1046108
It works well, particularly in making smaller states matter. The majority of the states would stand to lose a significant amount of voting power if we went to a straight popular majority system. The president needs to represent the largest possible crossection of the country, which can't happen if he just caters to the large population centers, which is exactly what would happen without the electoral college.
1145943
Voter turnout has never been especially strong anywhere in the USA.  We as a people simply take for granted that things will go all right, or that our one vote does not make much or any difference overall.\n\nThis is all right as long as things are going along all right.  But it is possible for someone to manipulate the system, and forge a change that is not in the best interest of the citizens, but is in the best interests of the one getting elected by the small minority that are voting.\n\nEven something as simple as being elected to a school board wields tremendous control and power.  Think of the money under their control, and the influence.  So there is no such thing as a small candidate, or small position.  Every leader makes a difference.  Every person counts.  Every vote counts.
922672
The electoral college works by giving each state a certain number of votes for president.  Big states like California and New York have more votes than states with fewer people, like Iowa and Montana.\n\nYou need to look at the numbers of votes each state has.  Then look at which states Bush and Kerry won.  When you add up the votes from the different states, Bush had more total votes than Kerry.\n\nTo answer your questions, you need to figure out three different combinations of states that would have still made Bush won, and three different combinations of states that would have made Kerry win.
480249
Yes. You could use the 'territory' rules that other places use, where the number of Representatives and/or Senators from DC (and maybe Puerto Rico) is smaller, because it isn't a state. But, it's hard to imagine a really good reason why the people of the Capital of the United States of America don't get to vote.
949854
Mark D has it right.\n\nThe only other point is that some states determine that the electoral college votes need to go to the person who gets the popular vote en total while others have it doled out in percentages.\nIn other words, assuming the candidates are running at 60% to 40% and there are 10 electoral votes available:\nin some states, the candidate with the 60% will get all 10 votes.\nin other states, the candidate with 60% of the vote will get 6 votes and the other will get 4 votes...\nstill in a few others, it is not based upon popular vote, and the electors get to give the votes where they would like to (with certain restrictions).\n\nSo, for most states, the popular vote DOES count, but mainly by state, not necessarily the complete number of all votes in the entire country.  That is what happened to Bush & Gore and also happened to Harry Truman (the early edition papers actually announced his opponent the winner...).\n\nThose people who say their votes don't count are using it as a scapegoat for their own laziness.  There are plenty of non presidential elections on the same ballot that do NOT have electoral colleges - Senators, representatives governors any state initiative all the way down to their city government.
530064
The Electorial College is who really votes for the President of the United States. This is not a democracy, this is a republic and as such we elect people to make our choices for us. This holds true with the Electorial College. Each state elects people to send to the Electorial College to vote for the President. At times the representatives we send vote in a way that they were not sent to vote. Twice in the history of the United States the popular vote and the Electorial College have differed in who they elected to the Presidency. With over 300 million people, you would not think that one vote would count, but now we know --- just look at florida 2000.
332320
Supposedly the citizens of the USA, but we really only vote for the electoral college. The Electors are under no obligation to vote the way the people voted. That's democracy for you.