The next U.S. President will be elected by the U.S. Electoral College

[Cheshire Cat]

The next president of the U.S. will not be elected by "popular vote" but rather will be elected by the U.S. Electoral College.

Did you know that the President and Vice President are not elected by the "popular vote"? They are not but are in fact chosen by the U.S. Electoral College as directed by the 12th Amendment.
What does this mean? Well it means that a candidate can get more individual votes than another and still not be elected to the office of president. That is a fact. It will be the total electoral votes decided state by state that will determine who is our next President. In Florida we have 29 electoral votes.

"Each state's Certificates of Ascertainment confirms the names of its appointed electors. A state's certification of its electors is generally sufficient to establish the qualifications of electors."

"The process for selecting Electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate Electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State."

{b]So, why even vote? There is a very good reason for that. It is a winner take all when it comes to the electoral votes and those are driven by "individual voters", all of us registered to vote in Florida as well as some select other states. The popular vote more or less drives the electoral vote almost all of the time but that reality is not set in stone.[/b]

For instance " Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties"
"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States".
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
The following states legal requirement for the electoral vote;
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA
Want to know more? Click this link:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

[BridgeTroll]

As it should be... or amend the constitution

[Cheshire Cat]

As it should be... or amend the constitution

Indeed that is currently what Amendment 12 dictates.  There are many individuals, including myself that think it is time to use the "popular vote" to elected our President and Vice President for one simple reason being the ability for power and money to corrupt our system and influence the Electoral College.  There is no reason not to let the individual voter be the deciding factor. IMO

[Tacachale]

The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.

[Cheshire Cat]

The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.

Did you read the link I included? There is no legal requirement in all the states that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all.  The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote.  It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways and in today's politics we are lacking many gentlemen and women.  Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote.  Most other states do not.

[coredumped]

There have been 4 elections, do date, where a president has WON the popular vote, but LOST the election. Most recently the 200 election with Bush vs Gore.
Bush had 50,456,002 votes and Gore had 50,999,897, but Gore still lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
The other elections where:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1888

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

And water is wet.  Moving on.... (you would think, but there are still many intelligent people that still feel they have a say in the presidential race after the primaries.  I'm even skeptical of that.)

I still haven't heard a good argument for WHY we vote for the POTUS.

Here's another question:  Why do people even bother running on a 3rd party platform? 

[Tacachale]

The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.

Did you read the link I included.  There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all.  The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote.  It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways.  Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote.  Most other states do not.

I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.

[Cheshire Cat]

The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.

Did you read the link I included.  There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all.  The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote.  It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways.  Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote.  Most other states do not.

I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.

Reading is a good thing at times.  This is one of those times. 

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

[Tacachale]

The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.

Did you read the link I included.  There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all.  The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote.  It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways.  Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote.  Most other states do not.

I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

Yes, as that says, in over half the states (I'd have to look up which ones) there are laws binding the electors to follow their pledge and vote according to the popular vote. Sometimes these laws have been passed after an election where one of their electors voted "faithlessly"; this famously happened in Washington where electors are now bound by a $10k fine. I think that was the last time it ever happened on purpose, though it still happens occasionally by accident. And again, it hasn't ever affected the outcome of the election.

[Adam White]

The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.

Did you read the link I included.  There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all.  The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote.  It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways.  Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote.  Most other states do not.

I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

Yes, as that says, in over half the states (I'd have to look up which ones) there are laws binding the electors to follow their pledge and vote according to the popular vote. Sometimes these laws have been passed after an election where one of their electors voted "faithlessly"; this famously happened in Washington where electors are now bound by a $10k fine. I think that was the last time it ever happened on purpose, though it still happens occasionally by accident. And again, it hasn't ever affected the outcome of the election.

As you mentioned before, the issue isn't the Electoral College - it's the winner-take-all nature of how the electors are awarded. That said, direct popular vote would be better, if only because it would more accurately reflect the distribution of votes.

[Cheshire Cat]

I provided the list of states in my original post as well as a link for the complete break down.  The bottom line is that it is not written in stone or by law that the electoral vote must follow the popular vote. That is assumed, lets be clear about that.  Understanding the process with clarity is why I start these posts and add links.  Most folks are not at all clear on the process, even those who think they know the ins and outs are often surprised by the nitty gritty contained in the facts. 

[Cheshire Cat]

The electoral college *is* decided by popular vote. The bigger issue than the electoral college is the fact that the winner gets all the state's votes (in most states). Getting rid of the electoral college wouldn't necessarily change that. The only thing that would change in getting rid of the electoral college would be that politicians would care less about smaller states.

Did you read the link I included.  There is no requirement that the electoral votes follow the "popular vote" with some States having no requirement at all.  The Supreme Court ruled long ago that those who have a vote in the Electoral College are not bound to vote along party lines or in line with the popular vote.  It's like a "gentleman's agreement" in many ways.  Florida is one of the few states that has a recourse if the Electoral College does not follow the popular vote.  Most other states do not.

I don't need to read it, I know how the electoral college works. Electors are indeed selected by the popular vote for President; in all but two states, a slate selected by the winning candidate's party then casts their votes for President. There have been some cases where electors don't follow the popular vote, but this is rare, and it's never affected the outcome of the election. Over half of the states have laws prohibiting this.

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

Yes, as that says, in over half the states (I'd have to look up which ones) there are laws binding the electors to follow their pledge and vote according to the popular vote. Sometimes these laws have been passed after an election where one of their electors voted "faithlessly"; this famously happened in Washington where electors are now bound by a $10k fine. I think that was the last time it ever happened on purpose, though it still happens occasionally by accident. And again, it hasn't ever affected the outcome of the election.

As you mentioned before, the issue isn't the Electoral College - it's the winner-take-all nature of how the electors are awarded. That said, direct popular vote would be better, if only because it would more accurately reflect the distribution of votes.

I agree Adam.  In today's world direct popular vote would be better and more honest.  When the founding fathers decided to go with the electoral college the size, breadth and morality of this nation was far different.  It should be the individual voters (popular vote) that decides who becomes our President and Vice President.

[Adam White]

I agree Adam.  In today's world direct popular vote would be better and more honest.  When the founding fathers decided to go with the electoral college the size, breadth and morality of this nation was far different.  It should be the individual voters (popular vote) that decides who becomes our President and Vice President.

There are a lot of stupid things about the Constitution that may have made sense to a bunch of guys in the 18th century - but are questionable now.

[Cheshire Cat]

I agree Adam.  In today's world direct popular vote would be better and more honest.  When the founding fathers decided to go with the electoral college the size, breadth and morality of this nation was far different.  It should be the individual voters (popular vote) that decides who becomes our President and Vice President.

There are a lot of stupid things about the Constitution that may have made sense to a bunch of guys in the 18th century - but are questionable now.

Those things were not stupid at the time but there are indeed many portions of the Constitution that no longer fit and are open to interpretation depending upon individual ideas and politics.  Of those one of the most straight forward to change would likely be to the amendment for the electoral college.  My guess is that it would be those who manipulate the college votes would stand up to fight that change.  But to my view it is the most fair and honest thing for all political parties.  Let "all" the voters decide, not the handpicked few.