It was always the intent that the president represent a majority opinion of the delegations from the states of the United States, and never just a majority of the raw population.
That's not intent, that's a compromise. The states with greater populations wanted proportional representation. The states with lower populations wanted equal state representation.
But both of them wanted the president to be elected by a state delegations and not by total popular vote of the country as a whole.
Neither wanted the current system. It arrived as a minimax solution to a temporary dispute.
And again, how the exact number of delegates from each state was decided isn't the relevant point. The fact that each state sends a delegation and has its own rules for deciding how said delegation votes is what's relevant here (that's what makes it an election by the "electoral college" rather than by "popular vote", which is what we're discussing here). Even if we appointed delegations to the electoral college on a strictly population basis (so toss out the whole "every state gets 2, then more based on population" compromise you're speaking of), we could still get results where the popular vote and the EC results differ. Because when you have very large states (like say California) with a very high percentage voting for one party (again, like say California), and a much larger number of smaller states, but where the voting margin is much smaller (like, say NC, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan, etc), you can easily award more EC votes to the party that won a large number of small states by a narrow margin versus the one that won a small number of large population states by a large margin. And that can result in a popular vote that differs from the EC vote.
Again, how the delegations are apportioned isn't the issue. It's the fact that we send delegations in the first place (and that most of them are "winner takes all") that causes the potential for the popular vote and the EC vote to differ. And that's not broken. That is 100% by design.
It's a good system. And there's nothing at all wrong when the EC result does not match the raw popular vote.
No it's not, for the very reason that Hillary could still become president as a legitimate result of the system.
Huh? Well, technically anyone could
, since the EC representatives could decide to vote for anyone they want. You know... technically.
Although electors typically vote the result of their state, they are not bound to do so. No one who supports the EC could complain if that was the result.
Sure. I think you're repeating a mistake I've seen lots of people make (same deal with the primaries as well). The EC representatives are not just random people picked up off the street and handed some awesome responsibility or something. These are well regarded members of the parties themselves, that have taken pledges to vote according to their party's wishes. It's not like a state has a EC delegation picked out, then they wait to find out how they're supposed to vote, but they're free to vote any way they want if they don't like the results (Um... that can be the case in primaries, but obviously not in the general, since the one party nominee is already known when the delegations are picked). Each party picks its delegation for each state via its own internal process (which one can assumes involves a whole lot of "make sure these are people who will 100% vote for our nominee"). If the Democrats win in a state, they send the Democratic delegation
to the Electoral College to vote. If the Republican's win, they send their delegation
. In states with split delegations, as one might expect, the Democrats send a number of their own party faithful equal to the number they won, and the GOP does the same.
I get that this idea of the EC voting contrary to who "won" is a popular one, but it just doesn't pan out. Yes, occasionally an EC delegate chooses to vote for someone other than his party's nominee, but that typically only happens when their party lost the election, or the numbers are such that it wont matter
. And it's done as a protest. For example, I believe that Reagan got one electoral vote in the 76 election because that one guy, whose vote didn't matter, wanted to express his opinion that Reagan should have been the nominee instead of Ford. I'm sure there's a few other examples, but I don't believe this has ever actually affected the result of the election itself, like ever. Most likely because people only do this when they know it wont actually affect the outcome. You know, because when you are a staunch member of a political party, it's kinda not likely you're going to intentionally do something to hand the presidency over to the other party.
You aren't honestly suggesting that GOP party delegates are going to chose to vote for Clinton, are you? Cause that's... kinda insane. Edited, Nov 11th 2016 7:08pm by gbaji