Someone who understands the ellectoral college?

Question

what is the point of voting when we don't determine who the president is anyway.

Answer 1

You raise an interesting point. At this time, only 24 of the 50 states have "faithful elector" laws which impose criminal penalties if their electors don't vote in compliance with the vote in the general election in November. So, a majority of the states' electors are not bound by any state statute to vote the way the people of that state voted. Two of the states's electors must vote in proportion to the vote in the general election for each Congressional district in that state.

But, the real power in the Federal government is the power of the purse. No bill for spending the peoples' money can originate in any other place than the House of Representatives. And we the people elect the members of that body. Because of the 17th Amendment, we also elect the members of the Senate. That's two good reasons for voting. Unfortunately, not a lot of Americans even know who their Member of Congress is.

We have a dreadful psychological legacy to deal with as a nation when we view the Presidency. It comes down to us from the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt when economic circumstances made us view the President as some sort of "Federal Wizard King". The duties of the President are enumerated in Article Two of the Constitution and are quite limited. But, less than one in five adults has ever read that document, so the Federal Wizard King image sticks in our national consciousness.

Answer 2

In most states, the majority of voters will determine the way the electoral college delegates from that state will lean when they do the voting for president.

Answer 3

Your vote does count on the state level.  But if you don't like it, then don't vote.  The 2000 election was effectively decided by just a few thousand voters in the state of Florida.  The 2004 election came down to a few tens of thousands of voters in Ohio.

This is far more determination than voters in Canada or the UK get.  They don't get to vote for their national leader AT ALL!!!  In those countries, they only get to vote for their local representative.

Besides, money is what determines who our president is...or at least who are the choices we get.  And on that note, great cynicism is understandable.

Answer 4

We vote to choose the electors -- and our votes, as determined by the state where we vote -- defines how those electors must cast their ballots.

It's a two-step process, rather than being a one-step process. And it has a second benefit -- the original purpose of the electoral college system -- which was to even out the balloting so that the more heavily populated states don't automatically dominate the result.

The problem isn't with the electoral college -- it's in the way the states force electors to vote all-or-nothing across the state based on the majority vote in that state.

A simple solution -- and one that doesn't require any constitutional change -- is to have the electoral votes for each state allocated pro-rata based on a percentage basis proportional to the votes in each state -- so that rather than one candidate getting all ballots from a state, candidates would get electoral ballots in proportion to what percentage of the popular vote they got in that state.

Answer 5

The idea is to spread the vote out among the whole population.  That way the big cities don't get to dominate every election.  With the huge population centers in some states and a lack of population in others (Montana and Alaska come to mind) the vote would always favor the more urban locals.  Candidates wouldn't even care what people in Montana thought because they would win elections without even having to consider them.  The electoral college is supposed to even the playing field out.  Of course now there are Red states considered Republican, Blue states considered Democratic, and Purple which are states that could go either way.  

Democratic candidates try to win without the south, and Republicans try to figure out how to win without New York and California.

Answer 6

Our voting DOES determine the president.   We are a nation of 50 individual states.   Through the Primaries we vote to decide who will go on to the nationals.  (sort of like miss America).  Then on election day we vote and the winner of OUR state cast their electoral votes for that candidate.  Then they tally all the states up and the winner wins.  If we didn't do it this way the states with the largest populations would decide for all of us.  Texas, NY and California comprise 25% of the population.   With the electoral process each state is equal in their vote.

Answer 7

Theoretically we don't, but the people chosen to carry out the states role almost always vote the way the states voted. I rare exceptions where that did not happen it didn't effect the results, also it is very rare that the majority of voters don't win the election. The reason its done this way is so that small states have some value in elections, with out the electoral system smaller states would have abosolutely no say in presidential elections. (have to remember our founding fathers didn't expect a two party system)