How to Explain the Electoral College

[foofighter20x]

Sometimes people don't get politics, but they do get Baseball! :D


Simply equate the EC to the 1960 World Series: Pittsburgh Pirates vs NY Yankees.

Q: How do you win the World Series?

A: You win the most games.

Q: And in the World Series, how many points is each game worth towards winning the series?

A: Only 1 each.

Q: And how do you win games?

A: By scoring the most runs.

1. So, popular votes within a state are like runs within a game.
2. But, due to the differences in crowd sizes--or populations--amongst the states, the games--or elections--are each worth different amounts of points--or electoral votes.
3. You win the Series--or the Presidency--by getting the majority of the points--or electoral votes.

Q: So, what happened in the 1960 World Series?

Answer:
Game 1: Pirates 6, Yankees 4
Game 2: Pirates 3, Yankees 16
Game 3: Pirates 0, Yankees 10
Game 4: Pirates 3, Yankees 2
Game 5: Pirates 5, Yankees 2
Game 6: Pirates 0, Yankees 12
Game 7: Pirates 10, Yankees 9

Pirates win 4-3.

Q: But why didn't the Yankees win?! They beat the Pirates by a score of 55 runs to 27!

A: While the Yankees did have a few blowout wins, it was the Pirates who won more games, more consistently, and thus deserved to take home the pennant.

Now let's put the crowd size, or population influence, into the equation. For simplicity sake, each game gets 1 point for every 5,000 fans, rounded to the nearest 5,000. Also, on top of those points, we'll give each game an additional 2 points just for familiarity. ;)


Game 1: Pirates 6, Yankees 4 : 36,676 : 7 : 2 : 9
Game 2: Pirates 3, Yankees 16 : 37,308 : 7 : 2 : 9
Game 3: Pirates 0, Yankees 10 : 70,001 : 14 : 2 : 16
Game 4: Pirates 3, Yankees 2 : 67,812 : 14 : 2 : 16
Game 5: Pirates 5, Yankees 2 : 62,753 : 13 : 2 : 15
Game 6: Pirates 0, Yankees 12 : 38,580 : 8 : 2 : 10
Game 7: Pirates 10, Yankees 9 : 36,683 : 7 : 2 : 9

Pirates win 49-35.


And that's how the EC is supposed to work. It makes sure that the candadiate with the broadest and most consistent popular support gets the White House. Which means there is much less chance of a radical stepping in and winning.

[0zzy]

Good explanation ;).

[Stuck in the Sand]

That is absolutely horrible. Aside from the fact that I hate baseball, nobody is going to sit there and read through all of that. Just put it like this:

X amount of people elect one person to vote for them.
That one person usually follows the direction of the total state but is not bound to it.

It's stupid simple and gets the overall point across.

[BuddyRey]

I never make an attempt to understand something that should in all honesty be abolished completely. :D

[nexalacer]

I never make an attempt to understand something that should in all honesty be abolished completely. :D

I used to think the same, before I realized how dangerous true democracy could be (tyranny of the majority and all that). I think the electoral college is part of the system created by the founders to keep a Republic and not a Democracy. Am I correct on this?

[Stuck in the Sand]

I think that how we elect our Executive Branch matters little. Electoral college, ok but direct elections would be better. Back in the day of the founders it was unrealistic to expect everyone to vote. The technology just wasn't there. Today it's possible and probably should be done. Either way I don't think the founders were to worried about it, they thought the other 2 branches were there for the checks and balances portion.

[ShaneC]

If our checks and balances were properly maintained, it really wouldn't matter whom was elected where, provided they weren't all a bunch of lawyers. :)

(No offense to any lawyers here)

The problem is, when you've got 3 branches of government, one with no spine, with with a superiority complex, and a 3rd bending to the will of the second, things go to shit.

The Judiciary branch is caving the the Executive. The Legislative won't stand against the Executive. So thus, the Executive has control.

PS. Anyone actually looked at the congressional voting records lately? Most everything has been party-line through and through.

100% of Republicans for, 98% dems against, 2% not voting, etc etc....no matter the bill.

No thought required. Just copy off your neighbor. Doesn't matter why, just follow the leader.

[Stuck in the Sand]

If our checks and balances were properly maintained, it really wouldn't matter whom was elected where, provided they weren't all a bunch of lawyers. :)

(No offense to any lawyers here)

The problem is, when you've got 3 branches of government, one with no spine, with with a superiority complex, and a 3rd bending to the will of the second, things go to shit.

The Judiciary branch is caving the the Executive. The Legislative won't stand against the Executive. So thus, the Executive has control.

PS. Anyone actually looked at the congressional voting records lately? Most everything has been party-line through and through.

100% of Republicans for, 98% dems against, 2% not voting, etc etc....no matter the bill.

No thought required. Just copy off your neighbor. Doesn't matter why, just follow the leader.

You realize none of this had any bearing on the actual discussion. What does the actual state of the judicial or legislative branches have to do with how we elect the executive branch? Let me answer this for you, nothing. I agree the other branches are messed up but that has no bearing on this conversation. It's just more rhetoric.

[ShaneC]

You realize none of this had any bearing on the actual discussion. What does the actual state of the judicial or legislative branches have to do with how we elect the executive branch? Let me answer this for you, nothing. I agree the other branches are messed up but that has no bearing on this conversation. It's just more rhetoric.

eh...yeah...sorry about that.

Just a random rant I needed to get out.

[foofighter20x]

I never make an attempt to understand something that should in all honesty be abolished completely. :D

Then you really want a Hillary presidency, huh?

You know who would get cut out of the entire political process if we went to a straight popular vote? The rural American.

Candidates would spend so much time focusing only on large population centers, usually the nests of socialistic thought, and ignore the "fly-over country" of middle America.

You must secretly be a Dem.

[mdh]

I don't see why people have such a problem with the electoral college system, though I've never particularly seen it as being worthwhile - that is to say, there don't seem to be enough benefits to the system to make it worth having around. I don't see any big drawbacks, either, though.
The population centers thing that foofighter20x mentioned is about it as far as drawbacks go.

[BuddyRey]

Then you really want a Hillary presidency, huh?

You know who would get cut out of the entire political process if we went to a straight popular vote? The rural American.

Candidates would spend so much time focusing only on large population centers, usually the nests of socialistic thought, and ignore the "fly-over country" of middle America.

You must secretly be a Dem.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that makes no sense to me whatsoever. How can rural Americans lose out when we put the power directly into THEIR hands and take it away from corrupt politicos who can be bought to sway an election?! If preventing tyranny meant preserving an elitist status quo, I'd say the electoral college was doing a Hell of a job!

I am a disillusioned ex-Democrat (I didn't know it was still a secret), but the issue of fair elections has nothing to do with one's party and everything to do with transparency in government and preventing Armani-suited Ivy League ninnies from stealing the electoral process from an entire nation.

[Mesogen]

The president was originally supposed to be elected by states not people. The electoral college was some sort of compromise way for states to "vote" for the president, but still maintain some fairness. It couldn't be one vote per state because the more populous states feel cheated and it couldn't be pure popular vote because the less populous states feel cheated, so the electoral college was a sort of compromise.