How is the US president elected?

"The election of the president and the vice president of the United States is an indirect election in which citizens of the United States who are registered to vote in one of the fifty U.S. states or in Washington, D.C., cast ballots not directly for those offices, but instead for members of the Electoral College.^{[note 1]} These electors then cast direct votes, known as electoral votes, for president, and for vice president. The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538, since the Twenty-Third Amendment granted voting rights to citizens of D.C.) is then elected to that office. If no candidate receives an absolute majority of the votes for president, the House of Representatives chooses the most qualifying candidate for the presidency; if no one receives an absolute majority of the votes for vice president, then the Senate elects the vice president."  wiki on election of POTUS

--------------

To understand federal elections in the US you have to understand that the US government is a truly federal system created by the states after negotiation among them and approval by the states in ratifying conventions.  That approval was a near run thing.  To protect their interests the smaller, and more thinly populated states demanded and got protections built into the constitution before they would agree to the creation of the Union.  Those provisions apply to all later state admissions to the Union.

One of these was that the states would conduct their own AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS.  To remove that provision from the US Constitution would require the agreement of the states in the ratification of amendments or of amendments subsequent to a constitutional convention.  Needless to say, the smaller states, which are in the majority in the Union are not going to agree to their reduction to something like Australian or German states or, worse yet to the status of French departments.

The question should therefore be, by whom and how is the US presidential election decided.  The process is both simple and complex.  Each state government by some process satisfactory to itself (usually a popular election) decides how to allocate "electors" who will directly elect the president and vice-president of the US.  The number of electors from each state equals the number of US Senators plus the number of members of the US House of Representatives.  The president and vice-president are separately elected.  The VP is not a deputy president.  He/she presides over the US Senate and awaits the incapacitation of the president.  Any other duties are things delegated by each president.  None are necessary.

The winning candidate must receive an absolute majority (270) votes in the Electoral College.  If no one does, then the election of the president is decided by the US House of Representatives where, in this case, each state has one vote.  In the same circumstance, the US Senate elects the vice-president.

The opportunities for malfeasance at the state level are obvious.  The present situation in Pennsylvania where local courts have decided that mail-in votes with illegible postmarks can be counted for three days after 3 November and that signatures on them do not have to match previous signatures on ballots is an obvious example.  This position provides the counters with the opportunity to manufacture however many votes are needed after 3 November.

This overall  electoral system was devised to prevent a direct popular national election for president and it does that.  The framers, correctly IMO, feared the mob.

There is no real possibility of moving away from this indirect system.  The states will not allow it.  pl 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

Comments

[blue peacock]

I like our constitution the way it is, in particular the electoral college. This makes sure of the need for geographical distribution of support for a president and prevents a few highly populated urban areas from dominating the executive branch. IMO, the only reason we have remained a republic is due to the current constitutional framework and the general acceptance of it over the centuries since it was ratified by the states.

Couple constitutional amendments I would support:

- Repeal the 17th amendment
- Add an amendment that clarifies the primacy of the natural rights of citizens over any right asserted by the state and by organizations including corporations and that organizations do not have personhood. This amendment should also clarify that any personal information including behavioral information of an individual belongs to them and cannot be used by anyone without their express permission except in cases of criminal conduct.

IMO, the judiciary have become more & more activist and ruled using a lot of legal sophistry to increase the power of large economic interests. Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad and Citizens United come to mind. I'm not sure how this can be curbed.

[Deap]

AK, the media has feasted on TDS for five long years. They got fat and lazy.

Who will the media be, what eyeballs will they pursue if Biden wins? Will they suddenly turn into the All Rainbows and All Unicorns networks. after their years on their junk food diet? That intrigues me.

The media made money hating Trump; not loving Biden. Biden-Harris in any form is media box office poison - both perform very badly in front of the cameras, generate no loyalty or following and without the government employee union block vote (and wholesale cheating), they are nothing.

There will be some serious Monday morning realities checks going on after the final count and the media has to find something positive in the Biden-Harris agenda, which is coming after them too since they are the "elite fat cats" this "progressive crowd" is poised to fleece until their eyeballs spin.

If Biden had traction, he wuold have been an early front-runner and never looked back. Except he wasn't. If Harris had traction, she never would have dropped out before the very first primary votes were cast.

You can have two winners when you own and rig the voting systems; but you can never have two winners who can win the heart and minds necessary to lead this country - from sea to shining sea.

No one loves government bureaucrats and that is the only base Biden-Harris will have. Very, very shaky foundation. They are too personally repugnant to make up for just "not being Trump".

[downtownhaiku]

To Scott re Hawaii
Hawaii ballots can be mailed in as you say. But they can also be placed in designated drop boxes located in many different places, some in county owned locations, others on private property.

[rick]

"I would rather see the federation dissolved then to live under New York Florida, and California rule."

On behalf of NY, heaven forbid you ever should.

[ked]

l did not explicitly state that my approach was extra-Constitutional. I should’ve more directly responded to your question Col - I communicated poorly. I also skip intermediary steps sometimes.

Allow me to “revise & extend” my remarks a bit.
a) as mechanism, I am not suggesting anything outside of what is defined in Article 5 to initiate a revisiting of the architecture & content of the US Constitution.
b) I believe the traditional mechanism for crafting & processing amendments is insufficient for a successful comprehensive re-write. I believe that after a quarter-millennia of experience & change a complete rewrite is desirable. I do not know if it is possible.
c) the alternative Article 5 mechanism is, “The Congress ... on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention...” I’m appealing to Governors to drive this Article 5 process to trigger a Convention by getting their state legislatures to meet the 2/3rds criteria.
d) now, this will be highly controversial (I’m guessing):
- that the Convention does these things;
1) passes an amendment stating that the Constitution will be replaced in toto by “the following... a New Constitution”.
2) the New Constitution (hat tip to The Who) will “clean up” the original by integrating all previous amendments into the appropriate Articles, removing language mooted in doing so.
3) the NC will include a New Article that identifies human, civil & private rights as contained in the first ten amendments (& elsewhere, as applicable) of the Original Constitution.
4) the Convention may also introduce new structures & rules in the NC via the Article 5 criteria.

My narrative response to you Col was about the political approach that might get around our ossified ways & means of amending the Constitution & the powers sit at its control panel.

I’ll respond to the other direct critiques after a breather, attending to a few responsibilities & fixing a cocktail as the early signs emerge.

[turcopolier]

ked

You are 25 years old? If there is a constitutional convention what happens when some states refuse to ratify the new documents?

[Leith]

Show me an independent source that PA polling officials are claiming they will count votes that have not been verified. That smells like a red herring to me, a very old one.

As for postmarks, there are none if your ballot is submitted via drop box. Those drop boxes should be collected or locked up at midnight tonight. To expect them to be counted today is a bit cockeyed IMO.

[ked]

Good question Col. a CC is risky - no question. not much in the way of precedent, nor certainty of discipline among participants.

I think the consensus response to the case you posit would be that those states must abide by the rules set out in the Original Constitution‘s Article 5 if & as carried over into the New Constitution. The USSC might be tasked to weigh-in clarifying the matter. “It depends” These kind of issues can become narrow or wide - influenced by aspects that cannot be foreseen from this range. It would not surprise me if this process of renewal took 5-10 yrs.

I think your point speaks to a wider question... do Americans & their chosen representatives give enough of a damn, are they adequately wise to govern themselves? If not, ought the Experiment be concluded anyway?
I sure wish I were 25 again!

[Leith]

I got a last minute email from the Trump campaign. They claim any campaign donation I made would be matched by 1000%. I was never good at percentages. Does that mean if I donate a hundred dollars, that someone else will kick in a thousand? Who would do that? Or is this a scam?

[turcopolier]

ked

It is not a question of "discipline." A CC essentially dissolves the Union and puts the states in the same position they were in when asked to ratify the present constitution.

[ked]

Col, I am aware of that interpretation of a Constitutional Convention. Why did the Founding Fathers include it? What was the debate about it? Who worded it? I must return to more study of the Constitution’s genesis.

To be as clear, my personal opinion is that;
- the Constitution requires a comprehensive revisiting - from content to word-crafting.
- doing so will be a test of the American Experiment - it’s people & institutions.
- it will (& should) take time.
- alternatives (ie the “traditional process”) are not adequate to address the flaws, nor as likely to engage the polity. however, it may prove an efficacious path once the national political dynamic ignites the matter. this is hard to know in advance.
- there is risk, but it is overcome by the value of recommitting our Nation to its core values - as stated in the motto: “Novus Ordo Seclorum”.
- a CC will be of value in dampening the likelihood of violent civil disorder.

Thanks for forcing me to sharpen my pov.

[turcopolier]

ked

C'mon, man. It is obvious that changes produced by a CC would require ratification. Therefore ...

[Fred]

ked,

"CC will be of value in dampening the likelihood of violent civil disorder"

You mean BLM/Antifa won't get upset over what gets rigged by the elites? Ah, a New Order for the Ages where they are in a permanent majority. Good luck.

[ked]

Yes sir, it would. The political tenor of the times could have a great impact upon the formal process. Even Congress might be aligned w/ the will of the people (well, more than usual anyway) if the process extends over a few election cycles.

We don’t have much left that’s a positive, formal civic experience shared by all in the United States. I think we’re up to the challenge - possibly more than our leaders.

Fred, I don’t find evidence of BLM to be the Great Threat that you seem to, & Antifa is another fantastic Other to make for easy target practice. I do find that your critiques are so colored by ideology to be predictable.

Walrus, there are & have always been rock-dumb humans. no reason not to try to minimize rock-dumbness. do you find education & health to be wasted on them? To your point on the doctrine of progress & kids-these-days vs the Founding Kids... you are so far afield from my opinion on the topic I’m not sure how to respond. I think you may’ve read too much into my desire to get some youth injected into our gerontocracy. Maybe you could contribute an article: Human Progress : Threat or Fantasy?