|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why did Al Gore lose the 2000 election,
even when he received the most votes? Why did Benjamin Harrison win the
election of 1888 even after Cleveland
received a slight majority of the popular vote? The answer lies in a
strange institution called the Electoral College.
When the country was being formed, there was a controversy over the method of passing bills and how the legislature would be set up. One suggestion was to allow each state to have representation based upon each state's population. While this seems fair, smaller states soon realized that they could be overlooked every time through such a system, because large and populous states could easily overcome their voting power. These states proposed an equal representation for all states. Ultimately, it was decided that the legislature of the United States would have two houses. One would be the House of Representatives and the other would be the Senate. Each state's House representation would be determined by its population. The Senate representation would be equal for all states. In order for a bill to pass, it would have to be approved by both houses, thus giving small and large states a place in the process. What does this have to do with electing the President? The framers got to the idea of electing the executive (who we call the President). They did not want the President to be elected by direct popular vote, but they also did not want the Congress (House and Senate) to elect the president. Eventually, though not at first, the solution came in much the same way as the one which decided the representation to Congress. Instead of direct popular vote, the people would vote for electors, who would then cast votes for President. While this may seem odd, it makes sense based on the legislative model. The national popular vote tally makes no difference in the election of a President. This is because the election is a federal election held on a state level. Each state has the number of electors as it has representatives and Senators. For example, Wyoming has one House representative, and two Senators. Therefore, they have three electors. 2 (Senators) + 1 (House Representative) = 3 Electoral Votes California would have 52 house seats in 2000 + 2 for the Senate = 54 Electoral Votes Note that this means that Wyoming increases their voting power 300 percent, while California's only changes 103 percent. This gives smaller states a percentage advantage in presidential elections. Unfair? Maybe, but this means that the urban states cannot always run over the smaller states, or so the argument goes. I will let the reader decide. The electors are chosen by the respective political parties of the candidates. If a candidate wins more votes than any other candidate in that state, he/she will win ALL the electoral votes from that state (Except in Maine and Nebraska). If Gore had beaten Bush in California by one popular vote, he would have still won all 54 electors! (probably not without some prior legal wrangling, though.) After the election, the electors vote, (usually, but not always) for the candidate they were elected to vote for. Electors vote seperately for President and Vice-President at their State Capitol in December. Popular votes, then, only determine the election on a state level. The national total is a moot point and is good only in a statistical sense. If neither party ticket wins a majority of the electoral vote, the election gets thrown into the Congress. The House of Representatives elects the President, and the Senate elects the Vice-President. Had this happened in 2000, it is likely that George W. Bush would be President and Joe Lieberman would be Vice-President! Return to Interesting Elections Before 1960 Return to the 2000-2004 Results
|
|
|
||||||
