publican wrote:
When the Founders set up the electoral college scheme for electing the president, it seemed like a good idea. But the way it functions now contains a fatal problem.
To show the principle involved I am going to use very approximate numbers. Those who can't handle simple arithmetic, and those who don't understand what "very approximate" means, need read no further.
Let's assume there are 200 million voters distributed among 50 states, so each state has 4 million voters. We also assume each state uses the "winner take all" method. To win the election a candidate then needs to win 26 states. In each state he needs 2M plus 1 votes. So altogether he needs to win 52,000,026 votes, which just over a quarter of the total votes. In this way a demagogue with a solid base of less than a third of the electorate can become president.
When the Founders set up the electoral college sch... (
show quote)
Nice try. You are assuming that the 200 million are distributed equally, if the population is distributed equally then your theory makes sense, 1/3 to win. However that is flawed based upon. The distribution. Of the 200 million.
So say, three states, California, Texas, and New York, have greater than 1/4 of the population, leaving the other states combined the other 1/4 of the population. These three states would decide the election based upon your premise, this describes the popular vote.
Now if we look at how the amount electors is distributed amongst the states, thats where the balance comes into play.
Better explanation would be if you read the federalist papers, I believe it was by Hamilton or Madison, where they define the system of the electoral college and the balance mechanism.
The locals have the most power, for it is through the local system, where the winner is drawn from. This removes in theory any political machine. For it is the counties, that make up the electoral college, but these counties are bound by thier perspective state. Whosoever wins the majority of the counties wins the state, and its from the counties that the electors are drawn from.
Also, the people trust the elector to vote for the will of the county they represent. If the elector flips, at time to cast the vote, it is the right and duty of the county to take action against the elector, who is bound according to local law to do his duty. If he is found derelict, then as the local law provides he hid thus held to account.
Local laws and states laws govern electors.
Thus, your thesis is flawed considering that the math assumes equality of population as compared to reality of the unequal distribution of population.
I