# data[].attributes.body
The Electoral College can override the vote of the people, making it unfair to the citizens of the Unites States. This last election serves as an example where Hilary Clinton won the popularity vote but Donald Trump won the electoral vote. It is a disaster for democracy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
hillary clinton lost the election but is winning the popular vote - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hillary Clinton lost but is winning the popular vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump may have scored an astonishing upset presidential victory, but Hillary Clinton could still receive more votes.

# data[].attributes.body
The electoral college something that is necessary for the country. The reason for this is that preserves the voice of states that have lower populations and mainly in the suburban areas. The Electoral College basically allows everyone to get a vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Tuesday, voters across the United States cast their ballots in the 2014 midterm elections. As with any election, there are winners and losers.

But, dear reader, this column offers neither post-election analysis nor after-the-fact second-guessing-well, at least, not in the well-worn, traditional sense. Instead, I want to use the occasion of Election Day to share an insight into the sad fundamentals of electoral democracy. Regardless of whether a favored candidate won or a popular ballot initiative passed, our nation suffered because of the number of people who didn't vote at all.

In a study released last week-just four days before the midterm elections-the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press predicted that 6 in 10 voting-age adults would not show up at the polls on Election Day. What's more, the study found that those who were most unlikely to vote are demographically distinct from likely voters:

They are young: 34 percent of nonvoters are younger than 30 years old and the vast majority-70 percent-are younger than 50 years old.

They are racially and ethnically diverse: A full 43 percent of nonvoters are Hispanic, African American, or other racial and ethnic minorities. That is roughly double the 22 percent of likely voters comprised by minorities.

They are less affluent than likely voters: Almost half-46 percent-of nonvoters have family incomes less than $30,000 per year, while only 19 percent of likely voters are from low-income families.

They are less educated than likely voters: While 72 percent of likely voters have completed at least some college, most nonvoters-54 percent-did not attend college.

Drew DeSilver, a senior writer at the Pew Research Center, noted in a separate report issued earlier this year that voter turnout regularly drops in midterm elections and has done so like clockwork since the 1840s. "In 2008, for instance, 57.1% of the voting-age population cast ballots-the highest level in four decades-as Barack Obama became the first African American elected president," he wrote in a July blog post. "But two years later only 36.9% voted in the midterm election that put the House back in Republican hands. For Obama's re-election in 2012, turnout rebounded to 53.7%."

Political scientists-such as James E. Campbell of the University of Georgia and Brian G. Knight at Brown University-have varied theories about why some potential voters do not trouble themselves to vote, especially in off-year or nonpresidential elections. In a 1987 scholarly article published in the American Journal of Political Science, Campbell suggested that midterm elections lack a "wow" factor and that generally only political partisans bother to vote. For his part, Knight argues in a paper published earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research that voters essentially become tired of the sitting president and express their displeasure by voting for the competing party in midterms, a phenomenon that is especially acute in the second term of an administration.

That certainly seemed to be the case in this midterm election. Say what you will about President Barack Obama's political skills or acumen in the White House, but as a candidate in 2008 and 2012, he encouraged remarkable turnout among unlikely voters, especially those who are young, minority, and poor. That was because voting is an expression of hope, a belief that a citizen's input into the system will yield social dividends. As a New York Times video documents, without hope, citizens doubt anything they say or do will change the world for their benefit.Or viewing it from another perspective, politicians rarely offer disillusioned citizens reasons for optimism. Lacking hope, those voters don't show up at the polls because they believe nothing politicians say or do makes life better for them. As far as political theories go, Campbell's and Knight's ideas are as good as any. But having observed the political process for quite some time, I have a theory of my own design. I call it the "reflex of rational nonvoting behavior."

Civic engagement-best exemplified by voting-depends upon an engaged and informed citizenry. But in America, it's hard to be a good citizen if you're poor, ignored, or vilified. Life is just too hard to worry about lofty issues such as public policies and partisan political intrigue. Indeed, among too many poor and minority Americans, voting and choosing elected officials just isn't viewed as essential to their lives.

This tends to come as something of a shock to happy, well-fed, and middle-class or affluent voters, who have a justified belief that the political process works to their benefit. Politicians covet these voters because their confidence in the process makes them more likely to support candidates and head to the polls on Election Day. But that's just one more illustration of the wide gulf between the haves and have-nots in our society.

An example unrelated to voting trends helps drive home this point: A team of social scientists at the University of Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences recently discovered considerable differences in the solid foods that babies from different social classes consumed. As reported in The Washington Post, the researchers discovered that "Specifically, diets high in sugar and fat were found to be associated with less educated mother and poorer households, while diets that more closely followed infant feeding guidelines were linked to higher education and bigger bank accounts."

The newspaper report makes clear this problem extends beyond personal choices and food preferences: "The tentacles of income inequality find their way into many different aspects of life, and food is a particularly apt example," the article stated. "Food inequality, whereby America's wealthiest people eat well, while the country's poorest eat, well, poorly, is not only real, but worsening."

Just as eating habits are determined by wealth, so too are political knowledge and awareness. I would argue this is by design, not by accident. To be sure, when politicians talk, it's generally not to poor people. As my colleague Claire Markham, the Outreach Manager for the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, pointed out in a recent TalkPoverty.org blog post, conservative members of the House Budget Committee held a series of five hearings on poverty this summer but invited only one working-poor person to address their august body.

"Seventeen experts on poverty and, among them, only one poor person," Markham wrote, noting the conservative House members didn't want to hear from a working-poor person. "They came to preach what they think they already know about people in poverty."

Of course, our nation's political leaders could-and should-do better to encourage all citizens to participate in voting. Sadly, that's rarely the case, as political expediency and efficient strategy demand that politicians seek out and mobilize only those voters who support their platforms. When politicians do discuss the issues that matter to low-income voters, such as minimum-wage increases, it is often only in the context of how those issues affect their existing political supporters. The hell with anyone who disagrees or holds competing political objectives, which is often the case with poor and minority Americans.

Writing for The Root, Danielle C. Belton addressed the conundrum of political nonparticipation among the people who most need representation. "The reason politicians ignore so many of the working poor is that they don't vote," she wrote. "And the reason so many of the working poor don't vote is that certain politicians have made sure it's as inconvenient as possible for them." Indeed, this election cycle saw several barriers to voting, including long waits, strict ID laws, and the potential for increased use of provisional ballots among minorities. Belton concludes that if voting were easier and more egalitarian, politicians would "suddenly have more citizens to answer to-citizens who want different things and can't be ignored."

Little wonder that these voters, the ones who have been rebuked and scorned, are the ones who tune out when politicians speak. Viewed from this perspective, it's an unfortunate and rational reflex for those who have been excluded from the national conversation to avoid trying to elbow their way into a voting booth on Election Day.
Sam Fulwood III is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Director of the CAP Leadership Institute. His work with the Center's Progress 2050 project examines the impact of policies on the nation when there will be no clear racial or ethnic majority by the year 2050.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Young, Minority, and Low-Income Citizens Don't Vote - Center for American Progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Tuesday, voters across the United States cast their ballots in the 2014 midterm elections. As with any election, there are winners and losers. But, dear reader, this column offers neither post-election analysis nor after-the-fact second-guessing-well, at least, not in the well-worn, traditional sense.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the electoral college should be abolished as the votes aren't equal. The smaller states votes don't matter equally to a bigger state. Also, a person can win presidency by "only 21.8% popular vote". Meaning that they will get all the state's votes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Come this November, many of us Americans will journey to our specified polling place to cast a vote for the next President of the United States. Our government leads us to believe that our vote matters, and that we should not take the responsibility lightly.

As a political science major, I religiously follow presidential campaigns and was looking forward to being able to vote this November in the general election for the first time. However, as I did more research on our voting system my excitement began to evaporate.

In fact, the more research I did on America's voting process the more incredulous I became. This was due in large part to my growing understanding of the Electoral College.
What is the Electoral College?
In the month of November during a presidential election year, each state holds an open election in which all qualified citizens may participate. Citizens cast a vote for a particular 'ticket', which comprises of a candidate for President and Vice President.

Many Americans are familiar with this part of the voting process. What happens after this stage, though, is not as universally understood.

It is at this point in the election process that the Electoral College begins to take effect. In 48 states the Electoral College is utilized in the same way (Maine and Nebraska have a slight variation). After the votes in each of these 48 states are counted and tallied, the political party whose candidate received a majority in a particular state is allowed to choose a slate of electors who will cast the real votes for President.

In total there are 538 electors who comprise of the Electoral College. States are not allotted electoral votes solely based on population. They are given electoral votes based on their representation in Congress. So each state is given a minimum of 3 electoral votes (each state has 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative) regardless of population.

We vote for President in November, but all 538 electors meet at a designated location within their respective state in December to cast an official ballot. The candidate who receives a majority of the electoral votes (currently 270) wins the election.
Problems with the Electoral College
There are many issues with the Electoral College. However, for the sake of expediency I will only touch on the ones I find to be most relevant.
1) The Distribution of Electoral College Votes Per State is Not Equally Dispersed
The Electoral College was created, in part, to make the states feel important in a federalist government. If the amount of Electoral College votes a state receives was directly proportionate to its population, smaller rural states would be rendered completely irrelevant. So they gave every state (along with the District of Columbia) a minimum of 3 votes.

While this distribution method successfully stroked the ego of our smaller states, it produced many unforeseen consequences. For starters, it made the value of each citizens vote different from that of someone living in another state.

As fairvote.org explains, "For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499."

By giving smaller states more electoral votes per person than larger states, disparity was created across the nation in regards to the significance of each citizens' vote. With the Electoral College, the value of a vote depends on what state a person lives in.
2) Swing States vs. Safe States
In 48 states, a presidential candidate can win 50.01% of the popular vote in a state, yet receive 100% of the electoral votes from that state.

This is important because some states are considered 'swing states' and others are considered 'safe states.'

Safe states are states that have historically proven to always vote in favor of the candidate of a particular party. Safe states for Republicans include Texas, Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee and Indiana, amongst others. Safe states for Democrats include New York, California, Maryland, Illinois and Washington, amongst others.

Swing states are states that have historically maintained equal support for the candidates of both parties, and are viewed as crucial in deciding the outcome of an election. Swing states include Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia and Colorado.

Therefore a Republican's vote in Maryland really doesn't matter and a Democrat's vote in Texas is worthless. However, if you are a resident of a swing state, say Florida for example, your vote is marginally more significant than the vote of an individual in a safe state.

This is because under an Electoral College voting process, an individual vote is only as valuable as its ability to influence the majority vote of a state. Why? Because you are not casting a direct vote for President; the electors are. And in 48 states plus the district of Colombia, the citizen's majority vote determines which candidate will receive all the electoral votes from their state.

3) A Person Can Become President By Winning Only 21.8% of the Popular Vote

As previously stated, the Electoral College is a winner take all system. If a candidate wins the popular vote of a state by a just a single vote, he generally receives all the electoral votes of that state (excluding Maine and Nebraska). Combine this with the fact that smaller states receive more electoral votes per person than larger states, and it becomes possible to win the presidency by winning just 21.8% of the American public's vote.

According to a study done by Jesse Ruderman, "A presidential candidate could be elected with as a little as 21.8% of the popular vote by getting just over 50% of the votes in DC and each of 39 small states. This is true even when everyone votes and there are only two candidates. In other words, a candidate could lose with 78.2% of the popular vote by getting just under 50% in small states and 100% in large states."

The reason that winning the 39 smallest states by a slight margin and outright losing the larger states results in winning the presidency with the lowest possible percentage of the popular vote, is because a candidate can win the votes of the fewest amount of people, yet reap the greatest reward by receiving more electoral votes than the state of those people should reasonably be given.

We saw this happen on a smaller scale in the 2000 election. Al Gore won 48.4% of the popular vote, trumping the 47.9% that George W. Bush garnered. However in the Electoral College, Gore received 266 votes while Bush received 271.

We must ask ourselves if we want a voting system that allows a President to be elected into office when less than ¼ of our nation voted for him or her. Or even if we want a voting process that allows a President to be elected when another candidate received just .5% more of the national popular vote, which actually happened just 16 years ago. In both cases, the collective demand of the American people is being denied.

While electors are generally extremely loyal to the party they align with, they don't have to vote the way the people of their state instructed them to. In other words, just because a candidate won the popular vote in your state does not mean that your electors have to cast a vote for said candidate themselves. Electors that vote against the will of the people are called "faithless electors."

As fairvote.org explains, "Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 157 faithless electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast its votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector."

Twenty-nine states have legislation that penalizes faithless electors, though no faithless elector has ever been successfully prosecuted. 21 states do not mandate that an elector must vote for his or her party's candidate.

Should the opinion of one person be able to overwrite the will of thousands (or even millions) of American voters?

It's worth considering that it might be time to rescind the Electoral College and rely exclusively on a national popular vote to determine our President.

By electing our President solely based on who the majority of our population selects, without the inclusion of an Electoral College, the vote of every American citizen would hold equal weight and significance. Under this new system, when we vote for President we would actually be voting for President, not instructing 'electors' on how we want them to vote. The will of the American people would always be executed and honored, and could never be thwarted.

With the Electoral College, the voting power of the people has been diluted and unequally distributed across our nation. It's time that we begin to amend our broken process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Come this November, many of us Americans will journey to our specified polling place to cast a vote for the next President of the United States. Our government leads us to believe that our vote matters, and that we should not take the responsibility lightly.

# data[].attributes.body
the electoral college has been in america for over 100 years. it should not be abolished because it supports the popular vote for each state.

# data[].attributes.body
the founding fathers created the electoral college for the long haul it has always been apart of US history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Under the Electoral College system, it is possible for a presidential candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president of the United States by winning in only a handful of key states. Should you ever forget this fact, critics of the Electoral College will be sure to remind you of it every four years.

What could the Founding Fathers-the framers of the Constitution-have been thinking in 1787?

Did they not realize that the Electoral College system effectively took the power to select the American president of out of the hands of the American people? Yes, they did. In fact, the Founders always intended that the states-not the people-select the president.

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by the direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.

Beware the Tyranny of the Majority

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers gave the American public of their day little credit for political awareness when it came to selecting the president. Here are some of their telling statements from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787

The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing the unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public.

Preserving Federalism

The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism-the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.

Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through a direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.

Are We a Democracy or Not?

Critics of the Electoral College system argue that by taking the selection of the president out of the hands of the public at large, that Electoral College system flies in the face of democracy. America is, after all, a democracy, is it not? Let's see.

Two of the most widely recognized forms of democracy are:

Pure or Direct Democracy -- All decisions are made directly by a majority vote of all eligible citizens. By their vote alone, citizens can enact laws and select or remove their leaders. The power of the people to control their government is unlimited.

Representative Democracy -- The citizens rule through representatives who they elect periodically in order to keep them accountable. The power of the people to control their government is thus limited by the actions of their elected representatives.

The United States is a representative democracy operated under a "republican" form of government as provided for in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution which states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government..." (This should not be confused with the Republican political party which is merely named after the form of government.)

In 1787, the Founding Fathers, based on their direct knowledge of history showing that unlimited power tends to become a tyrannical power, created the United States as a republic -- not a pure democracy.

A direct democracy only works when all or at least most of the people participate in the process. The Founding Fathers knew that as the nation grew and the time required for debating and voting on every issue increased, the public's desire to take part in the process would quickly decrease.

As a result, the decisions and actions of taken would not truly reflect the will of the majority, but small groups of people representing their own interests.

The Founders were unanimous in their desire that no single entity, be it the people or an agent of the government be given unlimited power. Achieving a " separation of powers" ultimately became their highest priority.

As a part of their plan to separate powers and authority, the Founders created the Electoral College as the method by which the people could choose their highest government leader-the president-while avoiding at least some of the dangers of a direct election.

But just because the Electoral College has worked just as the Founding Fathers intended for over 200 years does not mean that it should never be modified or even abandoned completely. What will it take for either to happen?

What Would it Take to Change the Electoral College System?

Any change to the way in which America chooses its president will require a constitutional amendment. For this to come about, the following will have to happen:

First, the fear must become reality. That is, a presidential candidate must lose the nationwide popular vote, but be elected through the Electoral College vote. This has happened exactly three times in the nation's history:

In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.

In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.

In 2000, Republican George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore by a margin of 50,996,582 to 50,456,062. But after the U.S. Supreme Court halted vote recounts in Florida, George W. Bush was awarded the state's 25 electoral votes and won the presidency through a 271 to 266 vote margin in the Electoral College.

It is sometimes reported that Richard M. Nixon received more popular votes in the 1960 election than winner John F. Kennedy, but official results showed Kennedy with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646. Kennedy won 303 Electoral College votes to Nixon's 219 votes.

Next, a candidate that loses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote must turn out to be a particularly unsuccessful and unpopular president. Otherwise, the impetus to blame the nation's woes on the Electoral College system will never materialize.

Finally, the constitutional amendment must get a two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress and be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Even if all of the above were to happen, it remains highly unlikely that the Electoral College system would be changed or repealed.

Under the above circumstances, it is probable that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats would hold a strong majority of seats in Congress.

Requiring a two-thirds vote from both houses, a constitutional amendment must have strong bi-partisan support -- support it will not get from a split Congress. (The president cannot veto a constitutional amendment.)

To be ratified and become effective, a constitutional amendment must also be approved by the legislatures of 39 out of the 50 states. By design, the Electoral College system grants the states the power to elect the president of the United States. How likely is it that 39 states are going to vote to give up that power? Moreover, 12 states control 53 percent of the votes in the Electoral College, leaving only 38 states that might even consider ratification.

Come on critics, can you really say that in 213 years of operation, the Elector College system has produced bad results? Only twice have the electors stumbled and been unable to choose a president, thus throwing the decision into the House of Representatives. Who did the House decide on in those two cases? Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learn Why the Founding Fathers Created the Electoral College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Under the Electoral College system, it is possible for a presidential candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president of the United States by winning in only a handful of key states. Should you ever forget this fact, critics of the Electoral College will be sure to remind you of it every four years.

# data[].attributes.body
The process of the Electoral College is too complicated. It makes people not want to vote. The Electoral college redistributes votes every decade due to population changes. Many other steps are involved, making people feel like their vote is insignificant. The article below details how the numbers change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
RED TAPE, WHITE LIES

If the electoral college votes in US states are based on population, how can a presidential candidate win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college vote?

Michael Cullen, Dublin Ireland

The electoral college votes are based on the number of senators (2 for each state) plus the number of representatives (roughly one for every 500,000 people) per state. Thus Florida has 27 Electors (2 for the senators and 25 for the c13million population).
Each state (and the District of Columbia) is guaranteed at least three Electors however small it is (2 senators and 1 representative) so Wyoming which has a population of 453,000 gets the same number of electors as say Nebrasksa with 800,000.

It would therefore pay to wrap up the small states as they would deliver more Electors per head of population, but in practice it is easier to concentrate on the biggest states such as California, New York, Texas etc as you'd get more Elector votes per campaign dollar spent.

How about a directly elected president?

Graham Ralph, Gravesend, UK

Electoral College votes are awarded (in all but 2 states) on "a winner takes all" principle. Consequently, a candidate may lose a state in a very close race and get NO electoral votes, while win overwhelmingly in another state.
Suppose there are only three states each with 10 electoral votes: State 1: 1 million for A; 900,000 for B. State 2: 1 million for A; 900,000 for B. State 3: 100,000 for A; 1,800,00 for B.

A wins with 20 electoral votes, although B has has over a million more popular votes.

Dave Null, Claremont, California, USA

There's no guarantee, as indeed there isn't in the UK either, that a majority of the popular vote will win the election. It all comes down to the relationship between the margin of victory in the states where a candidate wins, and the margin of defeat in the states lost. The electoral college votes for a particular state have historically all gone to the winning candidate, irrespective of the margin of victory in the popular vote; there's no prorating of the electoral college votes to reflect the narrowness of the victory. Consequently, winning by a narrow margin, and losing by a big margin, could result in the majority vote winner losing the election. Indeed, a quick look at the popular votes in the current US election will confirm that Al Gore will almost certainly have more votes nationally than George Bush, irrespective of who wins.
Incidentally, there seems to be no constitutional obligation on the electoral college members to follow the popular vote at all. If a very slight majority of the electorate in, say, Florida, votes for George Bush, there's nothing, constitutionally, to prevent any or indeed all of the electoral college voters from voting for Al Gore, or indeed, Mickey Mouse, if that's their fancy. Thus the world's greatest democracy is, in fact, in the hands of a politburo of 500+ individuals who can elect who they like.

Brian Harrison, Basingstoke, UK

Essentially, the reason is that (in most states) all of the electoral college votes for a state are given to the "winner" in that state. Consider a simplified example with two candidates and two states. If candidate A has a majority in the larger state and candidate B a larger majority in the smaller state, then A will get more electoral college votes, although B had more votes overall.

Pelham Barton, Birmingham, UK

The electoral college allocation is changed periodically to reflect changes in population. A state with a population swollen by recent immigration would still retain the number of electoral college votes it held from the last election. Similarly a state could have more electoral college votes than its population warranted if it had experienced a decline in population since the last election. Either situation would result in a skewed election. Incidentally, I think many people would take issue with Brian Harrison's description of the USA as the "world's greatest democracy". Assuming he means "populous", I would have thought that was India.

Richard Harrold, Caracas Venezuela

The same way you can win a tennis match despite losing more games: eg, 7-6; 7-6; 0-6; 06; 7-6. Thirty games, two sets and defeat. Twenty one games, three sets and the match. The only difference is that in tennis you don''t get supporters of the loser saying that the rules should be retroactively changed.

Quentin Langley, Woking UK

To win ALL of the electoral votes for a state, a candidate only needs to get the majority of the popular vote in that state. So, if a candidate won a bunch of states with only a very slim lead in each, all those states' electoral votes would go to him (or her), causing all the votes for the other candidate in those states to not matter at all. This chart explains it quite well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PopWinnerLosesElecVote.png

Margaret Olson, Philadelphia United States

Add your answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
If the electoral college votes in US states are based on population, how can a presidential candidate win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college vote? | Notes and Queries | guardian.co.uk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RED TAPE, WHITE LIES If the electoral college votes in US states are based on population, how can a presidential candidate win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college vote? Michael Cullen, Dublin Ireland The electoral college votes are based on the number of senators (2 for each state) plus the number of representatives (roughly one for every 500,000 people) per state.

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence 1:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Electoral College and the Two-Party System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On November 9, 2016 at 2:58am EST, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump to concede the presidential election. This event concluded one of the most unexpected electoral victories in American history. The campaign that preceded this election was characterized by harsh rhetoric that exacerbated the deep divisions within the country, as well as the division within both major parties.

# data[].attributes.body
based off our packet yesterday in class "the electoral college controversy"
the electoral college maintains and gives the smaller states a chance to make the votes and voice heard. electoral college makes small state votes just as important as large state votes. " without the promise of being able to make a difference in the election process there is virtually no reason a small state should remain in the united states."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the Electoral College Should be Abolished

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In summary, the Electoral College is an historical anachronism that distorts and complicates Presidential politics and violates basic democratic principles. The arguments in favor of it are baseless, and it stands in the way of effective electoral reform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Electoral College and Its Importance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly a month after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in this year's presidential election, progressive groups and activists are attempting to undermine the result along with fundamental institutions created by the Founding Fathers.

Clinton appears to have won the national popular vote in 2016, primarily fueled by massive landslides in populous Democratic states like California and New York. This has sparked efforts to do away with the state-based and not entirely democratic Electoral College.

Though a huge part of the anti-Electoral College push is sour grapes in the wake of a surprise electoral defeat, it serves the broader interest of the progressive movement's goal to both delegitimize the incoming administration and subvert the idea of federalism as enshrined in the Constitution.
Electoral College Worked in 2016
The Electoral College was carefully designed by the Founders after lengthy deliberation at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The design is this: Americans don't cast their vote for president, but instead for electors pledged to their preferred candidate. Each state has a set number of electors based on the total number of representatives and senators. You can read about why the Founders created this seemingly complex system here.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, who was fairly popular with progressives just a week ago, supported the Electoral College process in Federalist 68. He said that "if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent."

But a number of prominent Democrats have ignored Hamilton and called for an end to the Electoral College post-election.

Opponents of the Electoral College claim that the institution is fundamentally flawed. The fact that the winner of the most recent presidential contest didn't have the highest total vote further demonstrates why it needs to be scrapped, according to their logic.

This narrative couldn't be farther from the truth, as the issues surrounding the election prove exactly why the Electoral College is such an excellent system for the United States.

For instance, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is leading a movement to recount votes in three key states that Trump won: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. This was in part justified by the idea that Russia had tampered with the election.

The recount process will likely be messy, but it would be vastly more complicated if America had to undergo a national as opposed to state-level recount. Votes have trickled in for the last month, and it is possible that without the state-based system it might still be unclear who the next president would be.

As ugly as the 2016 election was, it would have been far uglier without the moderating, stable process afforded by the Electoral College.

Having states conduct their own elections is a strength of our system, not a weakness. For instance, without the Electoral College and respect for state powers, it would be difficult for America to experiment with solutions to prevent voter fraud. This should be a priority for those suddenly concerned about voting integrity.
Assault on Federalism
What is lost in the Electoral College debate is the underlying attack on America's cherished and inherited idea of federalism.

The Founders in their wisdom designed this republic with the intent of checking ambition with ambition, and delegating specific powers to both the national as well as state governments. They created a nation in which states could operate independently, experimenting with different policies and laws to fit their people.

The elimination of the Electoral College would be just another blow to the role of the states in the American system of government. No longer would presidential candidates have to appeal to the farmers of rural Iowa alongside the bankers of urban New York. They would be incentivized to campaign directly to the interests of the largest population centers alone.

The reasoning used to abolish the Electoral College could easily be applied to some of the most important aspects of America's constitutional republic.

If the Electoral College is simply an ancient, undemocratic, and defunct relic of the Founding, then why isn't the Senate? After all, treating the states equally and allowing them only two senators regardless of population is silly if one thinks the states hold no special place in our system. One writer was open about this in a Washington Post op-ed calling for abolishing the states entirely.

"Times have changed, and we need to rethink the notion of the 'United States of America,'" Lawrence R. Samuel wrote in The Washington Post. "Our states are no longer culturally diverse regions with their own respective identities; rather, they are artificially constructed geographic entities that certainly would not be formed today."

Samuel concluded:

"A federation of states was a wonderful idea in the late 18th century, but represents an unnecessary and costly burden in the early 21st. Two layers of government-federal and local-offers a cleaner, more sensible, and much more affordable system than our current one ..."

This is the essential issue at the heart of the Electoral College that extends far beyond the results of a single election.

The left wants to fundamentally change the system of federalism so venerated and protected by the founding generation. But those who believe that the United States was built on timeless ideas about man's relation to man should look to preserve the system that allowed America to rise to the status of a superpower while preserving individual liberty.
Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal.
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abolishing Electoral College Would Destroy Power of States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly a month after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in this year's presidential election, progressive groups and activists are attempting to undermine the result along with fundamental institutions created by the Founding Fathers. Clinton appears to have won the national popular vote in 2016, primarily fueled by massive landslides in populous Democratic states like California and New York.

# data[].attributes.body
based on packet "the electoral college controversy"
the electoral college will always have a sure winner and there would never be controversy on if the president was selected fairly. "the college promises a definite winner in a campaign, and promises a swift and sure decision."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Come this November, many of us Americans will journey to our specified polling place to cast a vote for the next President of the United States. Our government leads us to believe that our vote matters, and that we should not take the responsibility lightly.

As a political science major, I religiously follow presidential campaigns and was looking forward to being able to vote this November in the general election for the first time. However, as I did more research on our voting system my excitement began to evaporate.

In fact, the more research I did on America's voting process the more incredulous I became. This was due in large part to my growing understanding of the Electoral College.
What is the Electoral College?
In the month of November during a presidential election year, each state holds an open election in which all qualified citizens may participate. Citizens cast a vote for a particular 'ticket', which comprises of a candidate for President and Vice President.

Many Americans are familiar with this part of the voting process. What happens after this stage, though, is not as universally understood.

It is at this point in the election process that the Electoral College begins to take effect. In 48 states the Electoral College is utilized in the same way (Maine and Nebraska have a slight variation). After the votes in each of these 48 states are counted and tallied, the political party whose candidate received a majority in a particular state is allowed to choose a slate of electors who will cast the real votes for President.

In total there are 538 electors who comprise of the Electoral College. States are not allotted electoral votes solely based on population. They are given electoral votes based on their representation in Congress. So each state is given a minimum of 3 electoral votes (each state has 2 Senators and at least 1 Representative) regardless of population.

We vote for President in November, but all 538 electors meet at a designated location within their respective state in December to cast an official ballot. The candidate who receives a majority of the electoral votes (currently 270) wins the election.
Problems with the Electoral College
There are many issues with the Electoral College. However, for the sake of expediency I will only touch on the ones I find to be most relevant.
1) The Distribution of Electoral College Votes Per State is Not Equally Dispersed
The Electoral College was created, in part, to make the states feel important in a federalist government. If the amount of Electoral College votes a state receives was directly proportionate to its population, smaller rural states would be rendered completely irrelevant. So they gave every state (along with the District of Columbia) a minimum of 3 votes.

While this distribution method successfully stroked the ego of our smaller states, it produced many unforeseen consequences. For starters, it made the value of each citizens vote different from that of someone living in another state.

As fairvote.org explains, "For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499."

By giving smaller states more electoral votes per person than larger states, disparity was created across the nation in regards to the significance of each citizens' vote. With the Electoral College, the value of a vote depends on what state a person lives in.
2) Swing States vs. Safe States
In 48 states, a presidential candidate can win 50.01% of the popular vote in a state, yet receive 100% of the electoral votes from that state.

This is important because some states are considered 'swing states' and others are considered 'safe states.'

Safe states are states that have historically proven to always vote in favor of the candidate of a particular party. Safe states for Republicans include Texas, Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee and Indiana, amongst others. Safe states for Democrats include New York, California, Maryland, Illinois and Washington, amongst others.

Swing states are states that have historically maintained equal support for the candidates of both parties, and are viewed as crucial in deciding the outcome of an election. Swing states include Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia and Colorado.

Therefore a Republican's vote in Maryland really doesn't matter and a Democrat's vote in Texas is worthless. However, if you are a resident of a swing state, say Florida for example, your vote is marginally more significant than the vote of an individual in a safe state.

This is because under an Electoral College voting process, an individual vote is only as valuable as its ability to influence the majority vote of a state. Why? Because you are not casting a direct vote for President; the electors are. And in 48 states plus the district of Colombia, the citizen's majority vote determines which candidate will receive all the electoral votes from their state.

3) A Person Can Become President By Winning Only 21.8% of the Popular Vote

As previously stated, the Electoral College is a winner take all system. If a candidate wins the popular vote of a state by a just a single vote, he generally receives all the electoral votes of that state (excluding Maine and Nebraska). Combine this with the fact that smaller states receive more electoral votes per person than larger states, and it becomes possible to win the presidency by winning just 21.8% of the American public's vote.

According to a study done by Jesse Ruderman, "A presidential candidate could be elected with as a little as 21.8% of the popular vote by getting just over 50% of the votes in DC and each of 39 small states. This is true even when everyone votes and there are only two candidates. In other words, a candidate could lose with 78.2% of the popular vote by getting just under 50% in small states and 100% in large states."

The reason that winning the 39 smallest states by a slight margin and outright losing the larger states results in winning the presidency with the lowest possible percentage of the popular vote, is because a candidate can win the votes of the fewest amount of people, yet reap the greatest reward by receiving more electoral votes than the state of those people should reasonably be given.

We saw this happen on a smaller scale in the 2000 election. Al Gore won 48.4% of the popular vote, trumping the 47.9% that George W. Bush garnered. However in the Electoral College, Gore received 266 votes while Bush received 271.

We must ask ourselves if we want a voting system that allows a President to be elected into office when less than ¼ of our nation voted for him or her. Or even if we want a voting process that allows a President to be elected when another candidate received just .5% more of the national popular vote, which actually happened just 16 years ago. In both cases, the collective demand of the American people is being denied.

While electors are generally extremely loyal to the party they align with, they don't have to vote the way the people of their state instructed them to. In other words, just because a candidate won the popular vote in your state does not mean that your electors have to cast a vote for said candidate themselves. Electors that vote against the will of the people are called "faithless electors."

As fairvote.org explains, "Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 157 faithless electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast its votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector."

Twenty-nine states have legislation that penalizes faithless electors, though no faithless elector has ever been successfully prosecuted. 21 states do not mandate that an elector must vote for his or her party's candidate.

Should the opinion of one person be able to overwrite the will of thousands (or even millions) of American voters?

It's worth considering that it might be time to rescind the Electoral College and rely exclusively on a national popular vote to determine our President.

By electing our President solely based on who the majority of our population selects, without the inclusion of an Electoral College, the vote of every American citizen would hold equal weight and significance. Under this new system, when we vote for President we would actually be voting for President, not instructing 'electors' on how we want them to vote. The will of the American people would always be executed and honored, and could never be thwarted.

With the Electoral College, the voting power of the people has been diluted and unequally distributed across our nation. It's time that we begin to amend our broken process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why We Should Abolish the Electoral College

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Come this November, many of us Americans will journey to our specified polling place to cast a vote for the next President of the United States. Our government leads us to believe that our vote matters, and that we should not take the responsibility lightly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As we await results from the Florida recount, two things should be clear. First, if George W. Bush, having apparently lost the popular vote, does indeed win at least 270 electoral votes when the Electoral College meets, he is the lawful winner, who played by the Constitution's rules and won.

Second, we must realize that the Electoral College is a hopelessly outdated system and that we must abolish it. Direct election would resonate far better with the American value of one person, one vote. Indeed, the college was designed at the founding of the country to help one group -- white Southern males -- and this year, it has apparently done just that.

In 1787, as the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed direct election of the president. But James Madison of Virginia worried that such a system would hurt the South, which would have been outnumbered by the North in a direct election system. The creation of the Electoral College got around that: it was part of the deal that Southern states, in computing their share of electoral votes, could count slaves (albeit with a two-fifths discount), who of course were given none of the privileges of citizenship. Virginia emerged as the big winner, with more than a quarter of the electors needed to elect a president. A free state like Pennsylvania got fewer electoral votes even though it had approximately the same free population.

The Constitution's pro-Southern bias quickly became obvious. For 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency. Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800 against John Adams from Massachusetts in a race where the slavery skew of the Electoral College was the decisive margin of victory.

The system's gender bias was also obvious. In a direct presidential election, any state that chose to enfranchise its women would have automatically doubled its clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no special incentive to expand suffrage -- each got a fixed number of electoral votes, regardless of how many citizens were allowed to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Electoral College, Unfair From Day One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prof Akil Reed Amar Op-Ed article says Electoral College is hopelessly outdated system that must be abolished since direct election would resonate better with American value of one person, one votel says college was designed at founding of country to help Southern white males, which it has apparently done in current election (M)

# data[].attributes.body
Although the electoral college has been around many years, this proves nothing to being beneficial to the United States. To conclude, the electoral college has been unfair from day one in ways like, smaller state's votes don't count similarly to a larger state, a candidate can win everything from a popular vote from one state, and the voters don't have to vote for the candidate they were instructed to vote for. They could easily change it last minute, making it unfair especially if the losing candidate had the most votes from the people before the electoral college.

# data[].attributes.body
The Electoral college violates the right of the people to have a say  in their government. The one-vote-per-person rule is disregarded and smaller states as well as swing states get have an advantage. The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” If the people's opinion are overridden by the electoral college, is this right really being executed?  Our independent nation was built on the foundation of self-governing and adhering to what the people want. With the Electoral College, that simply isn't possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
consent of the governed | Important Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
function get_style51 () function end51_ () consent of the governed The Declaration of Independence says, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the

# data[].attributes.body
the electoral college is US history and never can be replaced. not every US citizen has knowledge on politics or the correct person to vote for. they could see someone on social media and think there suddenly a good canidate for president. the electoral college filters that and keeps everything organized for the people, while there vote still counts because of the winner takes all/ popular vote system.

# data[].attributes.body
The Electoral College is something that is significant from the beginning of the nation until now. It makes the elections more fair throughout and maintains a clear winner. It allows power to be shifted among people and separates the power well between the three branches of government and the church and state. It maintains something called the small-state advantage that allows the small states in the country to have a say in the election. There is no point of having a democratic nation if no one is willing to let everyone have the right to choose a person ready to lead. The amount of power will become more balanced.

# data[].attributes.body
The Electoral college violates the right of the people to have a say  in their government. The 
star_border
RATE
Your avatar

Add comment
matt belford closing argument

# data[].attributes.headline
The evidence provided by both sides of this argument were very compelling. After reading and analyzing I believe that the electoral college needs to be changed. The needs of the people of this country evolve over time. The side arguing to keep the electoral college stated the importance of providing a voice for the minority and the importance preserving history. I agreed with this statement. Even so, the arguments towards how the population vote provided one vote per  was what persuaded me so. The smaller states would get an advantage which would result in unfair treatment for others. Overall I believe the evidence provided by both sides consisted of relevant information but nonetheless I believe the con side to have won this argument.

# data[].attributes.subject
The evidence provided by both sides of this argument were very compelling. After reading and analyzing I believe that the electoral college needs to be changed. The needs of the people of this country evolve over time. The side arguing to keep the electoral college stated the importance of providing a voice for the minority and the importance preserving history. I agreed with this statement. Even so, the arguments towards how the population vote provided one vote per  was what persuaded me so. The smaller states would get an advantage which would result in unfair treatment for others. Overall I believe the evidence provided by both sides consisted of relevant information but nonetheless I believe the con side to have won this argument.

# data[].attributes.body
From reading the several debates in my perspective, i find it most likely to agree on the con side about the electoral college. Through the articles that i have , both the pros and cons side of the issue in very informative and have great evidence and reasoning. Although the cons about the electoral college may have a stronger and clear point as it brings unfairness and to the people if the worth of popular votes will not conclude who is elected with the uneven amount of votes from each state for the electoral college. I am persuade by the cons side and the negative impacts that the electoral college has onto the people. The electoral college should change the way it's system is operating like.

# data[].attributes.body
Your avatar

Add comment
The evidence provided by both sides of this argument were very compelling. After reading and analyzing I believe that the electoral college needs to be changed. The needs of the people of this country evolve over time. The side arguing to keep the electoral college stated that it provides a voice for the minority. I agreed with this statement. Even so, the arguments towards how the population vote provided one vote per person was what persuaded me so. The smaller states would get an advantage

Dena Elnokaly
1m
The evidence provided by both sides of this argument were very compelling. After reading and analyzing I believe that the electoral college needs to be changed. The needs of the people of this country evolve over time. The side arguing to keep the electoral college stated that it provides a voice for the minority. I agreed with this statement. Even so, the arguments towards how the population vote provided one vote per person was what persuaded me so. The smaller states would get an advantage
star_border
RATE
Your avatar

Add comment
Conclusion on debate

Anonymous
1m
Conclusion on debate
From reading the several debates in my perspective, i find it most likely to agree on the con side about the electoral college. Through the articles that i have , both the pros and cons side of the issue in very informative and have great evidence and reasoning. Although the cons about the electoral college may have a stronger and clear point as it brings unfairness and to the people if the worth of popular votes will not conclude who is elected with the uneven amount of votes from each state for the electoral college. I am persuade by the cons side and the negative impacts that the electoral college has onto the people.
star_border
RATE
Your avatar

Add comment