I simply do not understand the logic behind the Electoral College and indirect elections.  It just does not make sense to me.

Many people are claiming that Obama won “by double.”  This is true if you go strictly by the electoral votes.  But do electoral votes truly reflect the heartbeat of the nation?  Absolutely not!

The number of each state’s electoral votes are based on the number of its Senators (every one gets two–no more, no less–regardless of size or population) and Representatives (which are based on population–which is determined by a consensus taken every 10 years) in the United States Congress. Washington, DC is given a number of electoral votes equal to the number held by the “least populous” state.  US territories are not represented in the Electoral College.

Most states cast all of their electoral votes for the candidate that wins the majority of votes.  The only two states who don’t are Maine (4 votes) and Nebraska (5 votes), who used a tiered approach that awards two electoral votes to the overall statewide winner and one for the winner in each of their congressional districts.

With two states still unsettled as of this posting (N. Carolina (15 votes) and Missouri (11 votes)), the numbers shake out as follows:

Candidate	Obama	McCain
Electoral Votes	349	163
Electoral Vote %*	65%	30%
Popular Votes	63,685,576	56,280,666
Popular Vote %	53%	47%

*Missing 5% is unsettled NC and MO electoral votes

Looking at the electoral votes, Obama did win by more than twice as much, but the electoral votes don’t reflect the actual voting pattern of the state’s constituencies.  In a direct election, Obama still would have won, but only by 6% rather than by 35% or 40%.

One of the drawbacks, IMO, of the indirect election system is that candidates spend an incredible amount time and money in the states that have the most electoral votes–the “swing” states.  They don’t spend any time at all in states that only have four or five electoral votes–just not worth the effort or expense.  Which I find to be insulting.

If all states apportioned their votes the way Nebraska and Maine do, I think the electoral votes would more closely reflect the popular votes.  For instance, in Nebraska, McCain won every county and the total (57%), winning all five of their electoral votes.  In Maine, McCain only won one county, so Obama won all the others and the total (58%), winning all four of their electoral votes.

Let’s test Florida:

District*	Obama	McCain
1	117,628	249,565
2	164,441	186,715
3	75,911	102,098
4	210,679	236,153
5	176,974	221,396
6	175,963	217,232
7	60,260	92,731
8	271,866	186,079
9	173,088	169,286
10	243,994	206,909
11	19,232	18,810
12	113,552	128,658
13	177,137	191,071
14	117,878	145,624
15	218,372	245,535
16	130,525	133,490
17	122,799	87,866
18	245,598	175,731
19	171,264	105,582
20	236,385	112,186
21	122,799	87,866
22	85,632	52,791
23	327,014	170,756
24	230,044	226,736
25	73,578	101,144
-/+	41,025	56,726
Total	4,103,638	3,908,736
	51%	49%

*Because the only data I had was by county and Florida districts are really wonky and not nicely aligned with counties in all cases, I had to apportion some data between districts.  Since this is a “what-if” scenario, do not take this data as gospel or even as accurate in any sense of either word.  I used the 2008 presidential data for the state of Florida and that’s where any resemblance to reality ends. Amen, Blessed Be and pass the citrus salad.

In this scenario, instead of giving all 27 electoral votes to Obama, he would have received 2 votes for winning the total popular vote and 12 votes for the districts he carried for a total of 14 electoral votes (52%, which is very comparable to the 51% he achieved of the popular vote).  McCain would receive the other 13 electoral votes (48%, which is much more comparable to the 49% he achieved of the popular vote than the 0% he was actually given) for the districts he carried.  Presumably, Obama would still have won the election, but it would have taken longer for him to reach the required 51% mark and the electoral votes would have been much closer, properly reflecting the popular vote.

So, even though McCain carried more districts, Obama won our whole state and would have even using the Maine/Nebraska model; this makes no sense (and I voted for Obama–don’t get me wrong–I’m glad he won our state, I’m just not happy how it happened).  The only way Obama should have (IMO) legitimately won my state is by direct election.

We certainly have the technology to hold direct elections today, so why are we still letting others technically make this most important choice for us?

Humph!