Winning an election with fewer votes ?

[Externet]

Hi.  Never got it clear about electoral votes, whatever that is nor whoever cast those votes.  Yes, searched for it.  Correct, have no interest in politics.

Does it mean a candidate in U.S. elections can lose the election while having more votes count than the contender ?

[zapatos]

Yes, that is what it means. No Republican candidate for President has won the majority of the popular vote in 20 years.

Electoral votes come from states. If the majority of a state votes for the Republican, then the Republican gets ALL the electoral votes for that state (usually).

For simplicity, imagine there are only three states with 100 citizens each. Of those 300 citizens, 175 vote for Harris and 125 vote for Trump. Each state gets one electoral vote because they each have the same number of citizens.

Suppose:

State A has 100 citizens voting for Harris. Harris wins the state and one electoral vote.

State B has 40 citizens voting for Harris, 60 for Trump. Trump wins the state and one electoral vote.

State C has 35 citizens voting for Harris, 65 for Trump. Trump wins the state and the one electoral vote.

Result:

Harris wins the popular vote, 175 to 125.

Trump wins the electoral vote, 2 to 1.

Trump is the next president.

 

 

Edited October 25 by zapatos

[Externet]

Thanks. 

So that is democracy ! ...   Is that democracy ?  

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, Externet said:

Thanks. 

So that is democracy ! ...   Is that democracy ?  

No, it's an outdated compromise made by a body of privileged white guys - more or less the aristocracy of their republic. In order to create a union (not all that more perfect), they had to accept the institution of slavery. That made the vote-eligible white population of the southern states smaller than the northern states'. To give the southern states equal representation, they were empowered to appoint electors (privileged white guys). The system should have been overhauled after the Civil War, but the problem with amending the Constitution is that it requires a two-thirds majority just to be heard and three quarters agreement to pass. 

Like proportional representation, it can't be legislated without the co-operation of those who benefit from the status quo.     

[Externet]

Thank you, sir.  What other countries have this same democracy system ?

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Externet said:

Thank you, sir.  What other countries have this same democracy system ?

Apparently, other countries do have something similar to the electoral college, but none are skewed like the US one.

Quote

At least 10 other countries actually do, but they don't function in quite the same way that the U.S. system does, and they're sometimes used to select legislators rather than presidents.

[Endy0816]

Yes, strictly speaking the popular vote doesn't count, except for as it applies to faithless electors in the electoral college. Law varies by State in regards

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

[toucana]

According to the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution (passed in 1803) there is no constitutional requirement upon states to even hold a popular vote at all. US Presidents were to be chosen on the basis of votes cast by nominated state electors, or by contingent elections in Congress if such votes were tied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The popular vote wasn’t formally recorded until 1824, and didn’t become the customary basis for selecting electors in all states until the presidential election of 1880.

In one of the most contentious presidential elections of US history in 1876, the Democratic party contender Samuel J. Tilden lost to his Republican opponent Rutherford B. Hayes - in spite of the fact that Tilden had won both a plurality of the popular vote (50.9%), *and* a majority of the Electoral College votes (184-165).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876_United_States_presidential_election

Q. So how on earth did he lose ?

A. Twenty of the Electoral College votes were disputed and passed to an Electoral Commission who voted along party lines to award the disputed Electoral votes and the presidency to the Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes who became the 19th President  serving from 1877-1881.

This incidentally was the last US Presidential election in which both candidates were sitting governors.

[dimreepr]

On 10/26/2024 at 7:27 AM, Endy0816 said:

Yes, strictly speaking the popular vote doesn't count, except for as it applies to faithless electors in the electoral college. Law varies by State in regards

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

We're (by which I mean the royal we) lucky Mike Pence had a backbone the last time, Trump will have chosen much more carefully, this time; If he wins, we're looking at democracy in the rear view mirror...

On 10/25/2024 at 11:45 PM, Externet said:

Thanks. 

So that is democracy ! ...   Is that democracy ?  

As @Peterkin suggested there has never been a true democracy, some are closer than other's but it's always a compromise with the self intrest of the wealthier...

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

...suggested there has never been a true democracy, some are closer than other's but it's always a compromise with the self intrest of the wealthier...

I don't remember saying that, or suggesting it. There have been so many nations and systems with which I'm unfamiliar. I could confidently posit that the governance of most North American native peoples was democratic, and I understand Switzerland comes pretty damn close right now. Several proportional or phased electoral systems are more democratic than the American one - even simple majority popular vote is more representative than the electoral college. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

You don't want a pure democracy, you need a constitutional democracy that will protect certain rights of the minority as well.

In Canada we often have majority governments with 40% of the popular vote and could mathematically have a majority government with less than half of that. Just win seats with the minimum needed and don't get any votes in seats you lose.

There's no perfect system, though some countries run re-votes until someone gets over 50%.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You don't want a pure democracy, you need a constitutional democracy that will protect certain rights of the minority as well.

What about a constitutional democracy prevents a pure democracy?

Having said that, I don't think the American constitution could work as a pure democracy bc it could easily devolve into city States... 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There's no perfect system

Indeed, but a pure democracy would be a better system...

[J.C.MacSwell]

50 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What about a constitutional democracy prevents a pure democracy?

Having said that, I don't think the American constitution could work as a pure democracy bc it could easily devolve into city States... 

Indeed, but a pure democracy would be a better system...

What I meant by a pure democracy, unlimited by a constitution (or equivalent), would describe a situation where a majority could run roughshod, even enslave, a minority simply by voting to do so.

I don't think that would be a better system.

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What I meant by a pure democracy, unlimited by a constitution (or equivalent), would describe a situation where a majority could run roughshod, even enslave, a minority simply by voting to do so.

I don't think that would be a better system.

Are you saying that a constitution couldn't be designed, that would make a pure democracy better?

[swansont]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Are you saying that a constitution couldn't be designed, that would make a pure democracy better?

If you have a constitution you don’t have the pure democracy anymore (except for the trivial case of it guaranteeing a pure democracy)

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you have a constitution you don’t have the pure democracy anymore (except for the trivial case of it guaranteeing a pure democracy)

Why?

As MalcomeX so eloquently put it "we aint never seen a democracy"... 

[iNow]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Why?

The hint is right there in the word “pure.” Once a constitution puts limits or guardrails or constraints on the vote in any way it’s no longer a “pure” or direct democracy. 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why?

As MalcomeX so eloquently put it "we aint never seen a democracy"... 

Did you not understand what is meant by pure democracy, which has already been defined?

edit: xpost with iNow

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Did you not understand what is meant by pure democracy, which has already been defined?

edit: xpost with iNow

When is it ever as simply as a pure definition?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When is it ever as simply as a pure definition?

When it was explicitly stated above that’s what’s under discussion here?

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

When is it ever as simply as a pure definition?

As far as SFN goes, for as long as we’ve expected good-faith discussion and outlawed thread hijacking. If you want to change the parameters you open a new thread.

[Night FM]

21 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but a pure democracy would be a better system...

We don't want a pure democracy. It would be a tyranny of stupidity. Basically, the film Idiocracy. Pure democracy is said to be the worst type of government alongside tyranny. The 2020 capital riot is an example of what "pure democracy" would look like in action. So is the French Reign of Terror.

There seems to be a tendency for people to argue in favor of the popular vote deciding the President coincidentally when it would lead to their preferred party winning the election, and I have a feeling that if the case was the opposite, people would suddenly be less in favor of it.

Edited November 4 by Night FM

[dimreepr]

4 hours ago, Night FM said:

We don't want a pure democracy. It would be a tyranny of stupidity. Basically, the film Idiocracy. Pure democracy is said to be the worst type of government alongside tyranny. The 2020 capital riot is an example of what "pure democracy" would look like in action. So is the French Reign of Terror.

There seems to be a tendency for people to argue in favor of the popular vote deciding the President coincidentally when it would lead to their preferred party winning the election, and I have a feeling that if the case was the opposite, people would suddenly be less in favor of it.

As has been pointed out this isn't the right forum to discuss this.

Edited November 4 by dimreepr

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Night FM said:

There seems to be a tendency for people to argue in favor of the popular vote deciding the President

Whether or not we move toward the popular vote when choosing the president, moving away from the electoral college seems like a rather obvious improvement.

Doing so in parallel with implementing ranked choice voting could go a very long way toward reducing many of the self-inflicted wounds we keep experiencing election after election after election today. 

[Externet]

U.S. presidential election dictated by the electoral votes.  OK. 

Why, how come, the democracy of an individual state differs its democracy from the United States democracy ?  Each state elects their governor (State president with another name?)  by popular vote instead of an electoral -county?- votes if the United States is united' ?  😦