The person who wins the most votes in each state during the presidential campaign gets all the electoral votes, right?
Wrong.
That's true for 48 of the states where the electoral college vote is winner take all. Maine and Nebraska, however, do it differently. In each case, the state awards two of its votes to the winner of the state popular vote total. The other votes are apportioned to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district.
In November, Nebraska for the first time split its electoral college vote. Nebraska is a very Republican state and McCain swamped Obama overall, winning two of state's electoral college votes. He also beat Obama in the Third Congressional District (most of the state west of Lincoln) and the First Congressional District (including the area around Lincoln and roughly the eastern third). Obama, however, beat McCain in the popular vote in the 2nd Congressional District, which is essentially Omaha.
So, Obama gets 1 electoral college vote from Nebraska, and McCain gets 4.
Odds are the Republican-controlled legislature (which is nonpartisan, but not really) will change the law so this doesn't happen again...
I've been recovering from the election. Expect more posts about the election, Obama's administration, and other current events soon.
Showing posts with label electoral college. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electoral college. Show all posts
Monday, November 10, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
You're not voting for McCain or Obama, technically
A few weeks ago, I was sitting in my office doing some work and I got a phone call from what I thought was a reporter. The person on the other end of the line asked me if it's true that we don't really vote for the candidates listed on the ballot. I replied that was correct. Technically, when we cast our ballots in the presidential election, we vote for electors that are pledged to that candidate.
The voice on the other end of the line asked me, "Well, then how do we know that they will vote for the person they are pledged to?"
My response: you don't, and that's the point. The Electoral College was set up as one last check against majority tyranny by the Founding Fathers. When we cast our ballots, we actually cast our ballots for a slate of electors who then cast their ballots for their presidential choice. And they can choose to express themselves however they wish, regardless of their individual pledge to a candidate. Each elector represents one of the state's electoral college votes. In Montana, then, we have three electors that will cast their ballots in December for president. Who wins the popular vote in the state will have the three electors pledged to them cast Montana's electoral votes. This vote total is received by the Secretary of the Senate and that becomes the official election tally.
In case you were wondering, here are the electors pledged to McCain and Obama:
1. Thelma Baker
2. Errol Gault
3. John Brenden
1. Chas Jankier
2. Ann Milbrooke
3. Greg Jerguson
The likelihood of an elector NOT casting their ballot for the candidate to whom they are pledged is quite rare. First, the electors are generally good party members and friends of the candidate. Second, some states have laws that require electors to cast their ballots for the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (of course, I think these laws are constitutionally dubious but, to my knowledge, they've never been challenged). Montana is one of these states. This suggests, of course, that the check on majority tyranny is no longer a check but a simply constitutional formality ratifying the will of the people.
The last time an elector did not cast their ballot as pledged was in 1976 when one of Gerald Ford's electors cast his ballot for Ronald Reagan.
By the way, the person who called me was not a journalist but a chef. He and his colleagues were simply discussing this while preparing for the lunch crowd, and wanted to know who Montana's electors were.
The voice on the other end of the line asked me, "Well, then how do we know that they will vote for the person they are pledged to?"
My response: you don't, and that's the point. The Electoral College was set up as one last check against majority tyranny by the Founding Fathers. When we cast our ballots, we actually cast our ballots for a slate of electors who then cast their ballots for their presidential choice. And they can choose to express themselves however they wish, regardless of their individual pledge to a candidate. Each elector represents one of the state's electoral college votes. In Montana, then, we have three electors that will cast their ballots in December for president. Who wins the popular vote in the state will have the three electors pledged to them cast Montana's electoral votes. This vote total is received by the Secretary of the Senate and that becomes the official election tally.
In case you were wondering, here are the electors pledged to McCain and Obama:
1. Thelma Baker
2. Errol Gault
3. John Brenden
1. Chas Jankier
2. Ann Milbrooke
3. Greg Jerguson
The likelihood of an elector NOT casting their ballot for the candidate to whom they are pledged is quite rare. First, the electors are generally good party members and friends of the candidate. Second, some states have laws that require electors to cast their ballots for the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state (of course, I think these laws are constitutionally dubious but, to my knowledge, they've never been challenged). Montana is one of these states. This suggests, of course, that the check on majority tyranny is no longer a check but a simply constitutional formality ratifying the will of the people.
The last time an elector did not cast their ballot as pledged was in 1976 when one of Gerald Ford's electors cast his ballot for Ronald Reagan.
By the way, the person who called me was not a journalist but a chef. He and his colleagues were simply discussing this while preparing for the lunch crowd, and wanted to know who Montana's electors were.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
National polls: Ignore them
I'm blogging from the great state of Alaska today. I've been doing research on Mike Gravel, one of the case studies for my next book. Very interesting subject about which I will have more to say at a later date.
A couple of national polls came out today showing McCain in the lead. See the story here.
I want to caution you. National polls are not terribly useful in an election contest decided by the electoral college. In other words, it's the state by state polls that really matter, not the popular vote total nationally. More troubling for Obama are not national polls, but the Real Clear Politics State average of state polls that shows McCain inching ahead in the Electoral Vote Count. That's a better indicator of where the race is and the challenges both candidates face.
But, again, it is so very early in the game right now. What really matters is how both candidates perform at the convention, who they choose for running mates, and where the election stands in each state after the Republican Convention. That's when much of the electorate will begin to tune in and pay attention.
A couple of national polls came out today showing McCain in the lead. See the story here.
I want to caution you. National polls are not terribly useful in an election contest decided by the electoral college. In other words, it's the state by state polls that really matter, not the popular vote total nationally. More troubling for Obama are not national polls, but the Real Clear Politics State average of state polls that shows McCain inching ahead in the Electoral Vote Count. That's a better indicator of where the race is and the challenges both candidates face.
But, again, it is so very early in the game right now. What really matters is how both candidates perform at the convention, who they choose for running mates, and where the election stands in each state after the Republican Convention. That's when much of the electorate will begin to tune in and pay attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
