Talk:Electoral college
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that animage orphotograph ofElectoral college beincluded in this article toimprove its quality. Please replace this template with a more specificmedia request template where possible. TheFree Image Search Tool orOpenverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images onFlickr and other websites. | Upload |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between18 August 2020 and12 December 2020. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Lilybugs. Peer reviewers:Nutella717.
Above undated message substituted fromTemplate:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment byPrimeBOT (talk)20:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is not clearly understood: One side effect is that it is possible for a candidate to win more popular votes but have fewer electors elected to the Electoral College, meaning that the person with fewer popular votes gets elected to the presidency.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the article about the advantages of an electoral college. Mainly giving a balance of power to the smaller states. If the US went to a popular vote system States like California and New York Would control every presidential election and so candidates could run on a platform of "I'll send all the money to CA an NY, and stop sending money to all other states" and win the election.—Precedingunsigned comment added by68.178.100.214 (talk)21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
put in the names and biographies of current electoral college members, I cannot find this information anywhere and it seems like a secret society. Not very transparent for a democracy!
--- For a list of the 2000 electoral college reps, check this site.http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/members.htmlit doesnt say how many electoral votes in all66.65.111.35 (talk)00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
put a link on the main page of the article to separate the various 'electoral colleges' in the world/history. --Kensai 19:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)See also:Talk:U.S. Electoral CollegeI understand why someone might want to put Nader's vote totals on the page. I myself am a Libertarian, and would like to place my parties vote totals on the page as well. But these totals are not useful for the discussion, because:a) No one (I've heard from) disputes that Nader's supporters (Left) would overwhelmingly vote for Gore (Center-Left) if Nader wasn't in the game. This would be useful if the problem was that Gore didn't win the majority of votes, and Nader swung the election in this matter. But that isn't the problem at all, Gore won the majority of votes with or without Nader.b) Nader didn't receive *ANY* electoral college votes. No single elector defections (ala the Libertarian Party in 1972), or enough electors to go to a second round (as in some elections in the far past - can't remember right now, not enough coffee). So inserting him in the entry is pointless on this level as well.Now, I think it would be useful if someone could come up with some figures that would show how many states or counties Nader swung for Bush by drawing votes away from Gore. Absent this info, I think the reference should be deleted.
actually, i think Nader won Wyoming in 2000. nope, must have been some other election.
"Supporters feel the intent of the college is to favour a candidate who may have minority support overall but whose appeal is more broadly distributed across the nation, rather than one who is favoured by a minority of regions or only by voters in large cities. "
This is incorrect in its presentation. Both Al Gore and George Bush failed to win a majority of votes in the election. While supporters (of which I am one), do feel that the purpose is to possibly favor a minority candidate with broadly distributed appeal, the implication is unfavorable - though technically correct (both Gore & Bush were in the minority).
Can someone clarify this - I think I'm too partisan about to be fair myself!
The article implies in one particular sentence that theprimary purpose of the college is to stop the influence of urban centres over rural. While this may be the effect, what evidence is there that this is the primary purpose of the college, as intended by the authors of the constitution?
Please excuse me if I'm not doing this right, but this is the first time I've done anything with the Wikipedia.A useful addition to this page would be other countries that have Electoral College systems, for example I cam to this link from the Pakistan Electoral College link, so clearly there's a least one other country right there. It would be an interesting measure of the popularity of this concept.
Am I the only one that thinks that this article lacks a section with criticisms of the system. I'm pretty sure we could find some criticisms of the system, as this system isn't directly democratic. Are there any plans in countries using this system to change into the "normal" system of direct democracy? --HJV22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell does that last post mean??? It seemed to answer everything BUT the question. I support the addition of a criticisms section. It would be appropriate, imo.24.98.225.16 (talk)20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need this section for sure. The EC is why I don't even vote, my vote is meaningless and the EC is capable of overriding it if they see fit.74.240.230.64 (talk)—Precedingundated comment added17:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The president elected by the electoral college in Germany has not say, he is a political puppet. the Chancellor who runs Germany is elected by popular direct vote....Felt that bit of info was missing.
Both of you are wrong. The president in Germany DOES have some power, his signature is necessary for bills to become law, and he has, in the past, occasionally refused to sign a bill into law if he had grave constitutional objections. Second, the chancellor is not elected directly, he is elected by the lower house of parliament and appointed by the president. The second comment above is mind-boggling, however, in believing that powers held by a president under the Weimar constitution were still relevant today... He's also wrong on Hindenburg's motivations, but that's not the issue either...
--213.209.110.45 (talk)15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An important point is that this is not at all 'similar' to the power vested in the United States President, and therefore introducing this paragraph about other 'similar' electoral procedures is completely bogus. If you are going to make a comparison to how the supposed 'leader of the free world' is elected in the United States, let's make a comparison with a nation that places that much power in the same process. By saying 'similar', the paragraph here implies something that is not unusual for a representative democracy to do with regard to vesting a large amount of power to one individual administrating that entire nation's executive branch of government. A nation that devotes an enormous amount of it's revenue and debt to world-wide foreign policy in large part dictated by that individual. So let's be careful with what is meant by 'similar'. There's a reason -- and a precedent -- as to why historically electoral voting for presidents or similar administrators in different nation's was replaced by direct voting and/or scaling back of executive branch powers. The United States is possibly unique and hardly similar in this regard.
In this section, it states that winning the presidency without winning the popular vote only happened three times. It actually happened more than that. Here are the 20th century presidents that won without the majority of votes:1912 - Woodrow Wilson with 41.8% and in 1916 with 49.3%1948 - Harry Truman with 49.5%1960 - John F. Kennedy with 49.7%1968 - Richard Nixon with 43.4%1992 - Bill Clinton with 43% and in 1996 with 49%I am siting "the importance of the electoral college by Dr. George Grant." - Dace48
what is it called when a person casts a vote for someone other than they pledged to elect?
There isn't much information at [US Presidential Electors], and I think the two articles could benefit from a merge.64.50.95.206:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences like this make the reader (me) feel that everything orbits around the United States. Really does it?
Just a thought.
--200.126.147.11101:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Presidential Election is objectively, without a doubt, the most significant use of an electoral college system worldwide, both in terms of number of people affected and depth of impact.165.82.172.7 (talk)23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this inclusive|exclusive, comprehensive, completely verified??
This should be referenced further-up, easy-to-locate.Further, it, as well, deserves an article, comparing how eachentity got there|here, as well as how various nations have gotten past thisanachronism:
There should be anArgentina-succession-chronology.
There should be a list comparing all nations' comparable systems, regarding the equivalent position, despite the fact that various nations do name this w/ a variety of words|phrases.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please dosign yoursignature on yourmessage.~~ Thank You.-]]12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[ hopiakuta Please dosign yoursignature on yourmessage.~~ Thank You.-]]13:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"1949" & "1994" are the same digits; is there such an entity as a numerical-anagram??
[[ hopiakuta Please dosign yoursignature on yourmessage.~~ Thank You.-]]23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what tha freak!—Precedingunsigned comment added by70.129.65.4 (talk)15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see references for the material in this article. I'm particularly interested in seeing a reference for the statement that "the United States Electoral College was created for the express purpose of insuring that George Washington would be elected the first president." For that to be true, the Framers would have had to have known that the electors would vote for Washington. But how could they have known that, when they couldn’t have known who the state legislators would appoint as electors? Even if getting Washington elected was one reason for creating the Electoral College, it definitely wasn't the only reason, so the phrase "the express purpose" could be misleading. One of the reasons the Electoral College was created was to prevent "excessive democracy" by preventing the common people from electing the President and Vice President directly. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."
Thanks.Sharon Leigh Wilson (talk)07:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the territories and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico didn't have any representation in the US House nor in the US Senate, but don't they get to vote for President?
The main article says that there are 538 electoral votes. This would be 100 for US Senators, 435 for the House of Representatives, and 3 for the District of Columbia.
I knew that the District of Columbia didn't have any votes in the US Senate nor in the US House. Is it true the citizens residing in Washington D. C. can vote for electors and thus vote for President but none of the territories can neither vote for US President, US Senate, nor even for the President of the USA?
166.70.40.128 (talk)10:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The short-lived Confederate States of America provided for election of its president in virtually the same manner as set forth in the U.S. Constitution."
The Confederation did not have a president.
Please email me at think.perfect@gmail.com—Precedingunsigned comment added byCfabara (talk •contribs)23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not obvious that having the final vote really goes to that one group of people, and they can just decide as they wish wether or not to let the real public's opinion influence them? Is it not obvious that many people feel that distorts democracy? Just use logic.—Precedingunsigned comment added by68.231.65.233 (talk)19:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing a response on the electoral college and I can't find anything about whether or not the actual popular vote means anything? Is it just to make the citzens feel good and like they are participating in the elections? Why is there an electoral college? What is its purpose if the actual popular vote means nothing to the actual election? Why did the framers choose to create the electoral college?--76.25.72.225 (talk)00:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the article in preparing to respond to the above post for information on the US system, but could find none. I noticed that there seemed to be a missing paragraph after the one on Christianinty. The next paragraph began with "Similar systems are used or have been used in other presidential elections around the world." Obviously, the system of the Catholic church is not a presidential system, so I went searching for a missing paragraph. I found it in a spate of vandalistic edits from November 2006. I found some more in December 2007, so we might want to keep an eye out for items we remeber that might have disappeared. So much for Jimbo's thory of vandalism being reverted within 15 minutes. Or was it seconds? Don't make much difference compared to 17 months! There's got to be a better way to protect an encylopedia from such nonsense. Need I mention the vandal was an IP user? -BillCJ (talk)02:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As if to reinforce my point unchecked vandalsim and its IP perpetrators, an IP inserted comments within mine in Oct, 2008. Judging from the collection of vandalism warnings on the IP's talk page, I'm not assuming these were just misplaced comments, and thus not including them here. I might not have ever noticed them ,except that they gave an opinion I did and do not hold. "Welcome to WP, the free encyclopedia anyone can vandalize, and have it recorded for ever!" -BilCat (talk)20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article says "Nations with electoral college systems outside the United States include Burundi, Estonia, India, France (for the Senate), Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Nepal, Pakistan, and Trinidad and Tobago." and cites for many of the countries. However that contradictshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_voting_systems_by_nation what this article says? Any known reasons for this?
MrEaton (talk)15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under the heading "Modern electoral colleges", the first paragraph says "The United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive president". However in the subsequent third paragraph, it says "Other countries with electoral college systems include Burundi, Estonia,[1] India,[2] France (for the French Senate), the Republic of Ireland (for Seanad Éireann), Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago [3] and Vanuatu." Isn't this contradictory?— Precedingunsigned comment added by121.6.168.101 (talk •contribs)15:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1]—Precedingunsigned comment added by168.170.202.20 (talk)13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been vandalized once this morning. I suggest that it be locked until after official popular results are verified on November 5th and then again until the EC vote on December 4th.—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.119.56.30 (talk)14:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each state is allowed to decide how its electors will be chosen. All states except for Maine and Nebraska chose a winner take all system. If you get 50% +1 vote you get all the states electoral college votes. In the case of Maine and Nebraska, they use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote.—Precedingunsigned comment added byR Stillwater (talk •contribs)00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-logged-in editor just removed the following external link:
That was originally from
This is part of a larger series on the Constitution. Here are some other articles in that series that are related to the Electoral College:
If any editor thinks these would make good external links, please consider adding them to the article.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)03:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links onElectoral college. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)02:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2019, the United States Supreme Court has yet to decide the matter." This needs an update that I'll leave to someone who knows more about it than I do. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk)12:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
India uses an Electoral College too, to elect the President. The article should reflect that.Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk)14:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, just the US section has sufficient citations to justify keeping it in the article. Plan to copy/paste the rest of the sections into the talk page with all the templates if no improvements have been made in a couple of days. Would be great to upgrade this article from 'start-level' in terms of its quality. Will also work on adding some examples past experiments with electoral colleges in other countriesSuperb Owl (talk)22:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 | All of this section'slisted sourcesmay not bereliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed.(February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. None of the material is supported by secondary sources Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved. Find sources: "Electoral college" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
References
![[1]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dorlingkindersley-uk.co.uk%2fstatic%2fclipart%2fuk%2fdk%2feaster%2fimage_easter004.jpg){kind=link}