photo by kristin_a/flickr
To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with @KQEDEdspace and end it with #KQEDDoNow
For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.
Do Now
When we vote for president in the U.S., we’re not actually voting directly for the candidate we select on the ballot. Instead, we’re voting for a group of “electors” who are part of something called the Electoral College, and they are the one’s who actually cast the final votes that decide who the next president and vice president will be. So, in the presidential election it’s not a one-person-one-vote system. Should we change that system so it’s more direct democracy, or should we leave it the way it is? Is there a better system, perhaps?
Introduction
Here’s a little factoid that I’m sure we’ve probably all learned at some point, but that never fails to confuse the crap out of a lot voters. As Americans, we actually DO NOT directly elect our presidents and vice presidents. I repeat, the U.S. president is not chosen through a one-person-one-vote system!
So, then how does a presidential candidate win a state’s electoral votes?
The presidential election is decided state by state. And for each state, it’s a winner-take-all system. So … that means that the candidate who receives the most popular (aka direct) votes in each state gets all of the electors from his/her party. The other candidates in the race, even if they lose the popular vote by a single vote, get no electors from that state at all. Nada. Squat.
Simply put, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a state, wins all the electors in that state.
Why did our founders come up with this system (it’s in the Constitution, after all)?
Two reasons:
a) They wanted to steer clear of the British parliamentary model, where the chief executive (prime minister) is chosen by the majority party of elected representatives. The founders thought that it seemed a whole lot more democratic to appoint electors from each state than to have a system in which the president was elected by Congress.
b) It was as issue of old-school logistical problems: back in the day (like way, way back, before phones and trains and wheels – ok, they had wheels), long distance communication and travel was challenging to say the least. Voting for delegates at a local level was just easier and less vulnerable to corruption than was counting every person’s vote throughout the whole nation.
A candidate can win the presidency without winning the popular vote and it has happened three times in American history. The most recent occurrence was in the 2000 election, in which Al Gore won more popular votes but still lost the election to George W. Bush.
A more complete overview of the Electoral College can be viewed on KQED’s The Lowdown.
Resource
CGP Grey presents How the Electoral College Works – Nov. 11, 2012
How the Electoral College works in the modern world.
To respond to the Do Now, you can comment below or tweet your response. Be sure to begin your tweet with@KQEDedspace and end it with #KQEDDoNow
For more info on how to use Twitter, click here.
We encourage students to tweet their personal opinions as well as support their ideas with links to interesting/credible articles online (adding a nice research component) or retweet other people’s ideas that they agree/disagree/find amusing. We also value student-produced media linked to their tweets like memes or more extensive blog posts to represent their ideas. Of course, do as you can…and any contribution is most welcomed.
More Resources
Current segment AL Gore Calls for Popular Vote – Aug. 30, 2012
Former Vice President Al Gore and Current TV hosts Eliot Spitzer, Cenk Uygur, Jennifer Granholm and John Fugelsang talk about the disenfranchisement of American voters and the pros and cons of going to a popular vote as part of Current TV’s coverage of the 2012 Republican National Convention.
RT America segment Electoral College Dropout – Nov. 3, 2011
Is the Electoral College still relevant? As a recent poll shows 62% of Americans think it’s not, RT Producer Adriana Usero hits the streets of DC to see what exactly people have to say.
Do Now
When we vote for president in the U.S., we’re not actually voting directly for the candidate we select on the ballot. Instead, we’re voting for a group of “electors” who are part of something called the Electoral College, and they are the one’s who actually cast the final votes that decide who the next president and vice president will be. So, in the presidential election it’s not a one-person-one-vote system. Should we change that system so it’s more direct democracy, or should we leave it the way it is? Is there a better system, perhaps?
