Neo Deist
Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
The Electoral College (EC) has been around since the founding of the USA, and it is the EC that actually elects the president, not the popular vote. The electors are supposed to vote the way the popular vote within the state voted, but in some states it is not the law. In those states where it is the law, the penalty for casting an "off vote" is usually just a fine (that donors would pay).
Under the EC system, it is actually the states (as a republic) that decide the election. That is why a candidate could win the popular vote but lose the election. They could carry states with higher populations like CA or NY, but the number of states actually won could be less than the other candidate(s).
Then comes the question that the OP is actually about: does your vote count?
Under the EC system, the answer is MAYBE. That is because if your candidate won the state, then yes, your vote counted. If your candidate did not win the state, then no, your vote does not count. Let me explain this further.
Using California 2016 as the example, around 33% (1 in 3) of CA voters chose Trump. However, CA tends to be a liberal state, so Hillary actually won the state (62%) and got all 55 electoral votes. That 33% was not represented in the outcome for CA.
There is another way to look at it. The black population in the US makes up around 13% of the total population, while whites make up around 77%. Just as an example, let's say 8% of blacks can legally vote (factoring out minors, etc.), Out of that 77% of whites, all it takes is 9% to vote opposite the black voters, and the black vote is effectively wiped out and meaningless.
Some will say to do away with the EC completely and just let the popular vote decide elections. Under this scenario, then yes, every single vote would count, and it would not matter where you lived. The problem is that mathematically, candidates could only focus on the highest population centers and ignore the rest of the country. Some states would not be touched by the campaign trail. The candidates would never speak to them. Of course it would also mean that we would no longer be a republic, as was founded by our Forefathers.
So, remedies?
One option I have seen is to give every state 100 electoral votes (EV). Using CA again as the example, the 33% that was not represented would now be represented with 33 EV. Hillary would be given 62 EV and the other candidates would get some small percentage divided among themselves. The first candidate to 2501 EV, wins!
Very simple, all votes matter, and the states still elect with an adjusted EC for modern times, thus preserving the republic!
Edit: this also means people need to actually vote. It is estimated that 90,000,000 people did NOT vote in the 2016 presidential election.
Under the EC system, it is actually the states (as a republic) that decide the election. That is why a candidate could win the popular vote but lose the election. They could carry states with higher populations like CA or NY, but the number of states actually won could be less than the other candidate(s).
Then comes the question that the OP is actually about: does your vote count?
Under the EC system, the answer is MAYBE. That is because if your candidate won the state, then yes, your vote counted. If your candidate did not win the state, then no, your vote does not count. Let me explain this further.
Using California 2016 as the example, around 33% (1 in 3) of CA voters chose Trump. However, CA tends to be a liberal state, so Hillary actually won the state (62%) and got all 55 electoral votes. That 33% was not represented in the outcome for CA.
There is another way to look at it. The black population in the US makes up around 13% of the total population, while whites make up around 77%. Just as an example, let's say 8% of blacks can legally vote (factoring out minors, etc.), Out of that 77% of whites, all it takes is 9% to vote opposite the black voters, and the black vote is effectively wiped out and meaningless.
Some will say to do away with the EC completely and just let the popular vote decide elections. Under this scenario, then yes, every single vote would count, and it would not matter where you lived. The problem is that mathematically, candidates could only focus on the highest population centers and ignore the rest of the country. Some states would not be touched by the campaign trail. The candidates would never speak to them. Of course it would also mean that we would no longer be a republic, as was founded by our Forefathers.
So, remedies?
One option I have seen is to give every state 100 electoral votes (EV). Using CA again as the example, the 33% that was not represented would now be represented with 33 EV. Hillary would be given 62 EV and the other candidates would get some small percentage divided among themselves. The first candidate to 2501 EV, wins!
Very simple, all votes matter, and the states still elect with an adjusted EC for modern times, thus preserving the republic!
Edit: this also means people need to actually vote. It is estimated that 90,000,000 people did NOT vote in the 2016 presidential election.
Last edited:
