U.S. President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney face off in their third and final debate, with polls showing them dead even in their race for the White House. (AFP/Jewel Samad/Getty Images)
U.S. President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney face off in their third and final debate, with polls showing them dead even in their race for the White House. (AFP/Jewel Samad/Getty Images)
The U.S. president is elected by a group of state delegates, not individual voters. (REUTERS/Larry Downing)
Joined at the hip?
Not according to its revered Founding Fathers, who crafted a presidential voting system based on an Electoral College, rather than a popular vote, to save the country from itself. And not according to founder Benjamin Franklin, who called democracy “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”
As a result, the president is elected by a group of state delegates, not individual voters. “Swing states” that are not firm supporters of one or another political party become decisive battlegrounds, lavishly wooed with candidate appearances, political promises and millions of advertising dollars.
Voters in other states complain that their votes don’t count. But in spite of a growing movement for a popular vote system, no party has taken on the contentious task of launching a bid for constitutional change.
Disparities between electoral and popular vote counts have caused bitter political divisions in the past, as when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in 2000. In this too-close-to-call election, the nightmare of a candidate who wins the college but loses the popular vote — or vice-versa — is back.
Q: How did the Electoral College come about?
A: The U.S. was a young country in the 18th century, with little experience of direct election of leaders. Most of the original governors were chosen by state lawmakers. The first plan for choosing a president was a vote by the Congress. To avoid giving the legislature too much power over the country’s leader, and to emphasize the importance of the union of states in the choice of a leader, the constitutional framers opted for a compromise: the state-based Electoral College. Nevertheless, Thomas Jefferson’s election in 1800 was so hotly contested that the final selection was made by Congress.
Q: So who actually elects the president?
A: Electors are usually chosen by major political parties at state conventions, or appointed by state party leaders. In a state like Florida, with 29 electoral votes, 29 potential Democratic and 29 potential Republican “electors” would be chosen in advance of the presidential poll.
Q: How many votes does each state get?
A: Electoral College votes depend on the number of U.S. senators and members of the U.S. House of Representatives in each state. In 2012 some states gained or lost votes according to a U.S. Census Bureau head count.
Q: Who gets the biggest slice of the electoral pie?
A: California, with 55. Followed by Texas, 38, New York and Florida, 29 each.
Q: How does a presidential candidate win those votes?
A: It’s mostly winner-take-all. The candidate with the most popular votes in a state wins all its votes. But in Maine and Nebraska, two electors are chosen by state popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each congressional district.
Q: So in such a complex system, how does Joe or Jane Average vote?
A: They cast their ballot for their favourite candidates and hope for the best. Those ballots are counted as popular vote. Their ballots, however, also elect the “real” electors in each state – whether Republican or Democrat. The electors are the ones who cast the official vote for president on behalf of the voters in their state.
Once the popular vote is known, the electors chosen by the losing party stand down, and those on the winning side are called to the Electoral College, to meet in December and vote for the country’s leaders.
California electors, for instance, would cast 55 Electoral College votes, and those of Wyoming, only 3. The electors are chosen for party loyalty, and are expected to vote for their party’s candidates, so “faithlessness” is not an important issue. Nevertheless more than half the states have laws to prevent it.
Those who want to change the two-century-old system to a popular vote argue that the Electoral College undemocratically skews election campaigns, affecting the way in which candidates focus on individual states and their issues.
In the 2012 campaign, most of Obama’s and Romney’s resources have gone into winning uncertain swing states rather than voters throughout the whole country. States the candidates know they are certain to win or lose get short shrift. With a direct vote system they would have to work harder in more of the populous states, although the smaller states could get less attention.
Q: Do the Electoral College electors cast ballots along with the public, Nov. 6?
A: No. They vote on Dec. 13, casting one ballot each for president and vice-president. The announcement of the winners is made by the president of the U.S. Senate on Jan. 6.
Q: And if the numbers don’t add up?
To win the Electoral College, a candidate needs one vote more than 50 per cent of the total of 538 votes, or 270 votes. If neither side reaches that total, the House of Representatives selects the president, with each state’s representative casting one vote. Again, 50 per cent plus one is the rule. In the Republican-dominated House, Romney would be a shoo-in. But in an election as tight as Jennifer Lopez’s jeans, it’s also possible for an Electoral College winner to lose the popular vote.
Q: Which would mean?
A: Some say a bad political hangover, others an electoral zombie apocalypse. Either way, it would ratchet up Washington’s already ferocious partisan wars, infuriate powerhouse states such as California and New York — along with many voters — and cast international doubt on the American electoral system.
--Olivia Ward, Foreign Affairs Reporter
Charles Koch and his brother David have donated $130 million to Republican candidates who support their agenda. (Bo Rader/Wichita Eagle/MCT file photo)
The best election money can buy? In 2012, that depends on who’s asking: the mega-rich cronies, companies and unions paying millions for ads that attack the candidates they aim to defeat — or the voters who have to wade through the morass of misinformation on their way to the polls.
In any case, This is shaping up as the most expensive election in history, with an estimated $2.5 billion stumped up for Obama and Romney combined, and an unprecedented $5.8 billion predicted for presidential and congressional elections in total, according to the Washington-based watchdog Center for Responsive Politics. That’s enough to cover the national debt of Uganda.
This election has also spawned a new buzzphrase: black money. Although the “Super PACs” — political action committees that can spend limitless amounts to support their preferred candidates, as long as they don’t actually co-ordinate with official campaigns — may disclose their donors, a new category of “non-profit” activist groups keep theirs largely secret. “The real difference in this (election cycle) is how great a portion of (campaign) money will come from purportedly independent, often secretive groups,” says the centre’s Sheila Krumholz.
The money sunk into this campaign may buy not only the election, but also favours that the backers could call in after it’s over. For instance, brothers David and Charles Koch — known as the Kochtopus for the reach of their political tentacles — are oil and chemicals magnates. They pledged $130 million for Republican candidates who support their free-enterprise, anti-regulation agenda. Unions, meanwhile, have backed liberal politicians and the Democratic Party.
“Money is talking,” writes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in EcoWatch. “In 97 per cent of federal elections over the past two decades, the best-funded candidates were victorious.”
--Olivia Ward
Four states have election day referendums on the issue - Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington - and gay-marriage opponents are hopeful their winning streak can be preserved. (AP Photo File photo/Patrick Semansky)
The tradition of letting Americans vote on the laws that govern them started in 1898 in South Dakota, with a ballot on women’s right to vote. It was defeated, but another, to regulate the sale of liquor, passed. Since then, political parties, activists and state legislators have caught on to the idea of putting laws to a vote, with hundreds of initiatives to extend their liberal or conservative agendas. Dozens of referenda were slated throughout 2012, including 176 ballot questions in 38 states along with the presidential vote.
Some of the Nov. 6 highlights:
Alabama Vote on allowing the use of secret ballots in union voting.
Alaska Vote on exempting crime victims from responsibility for death or injury damages claims if they defend themselves.
California Vote to approve or defeat a tax increase to fund public education and other state services.
Florida Vote to bar public funding of abortion and to repeal a ban on the use of public funds for religious groups.
Louisiana Vote to add constitutional protections to existing state gun rights.
Maine Vote to overturn ban on gay marriage and to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Massachusetts Vote to allow assisted “death with dignity.”
Michigan Vote to make collective bargaining a right for all workers. And vote to make voters approve any new bridge or tunnel from the state to Canada.
Montana Vote on an act denying some state-funded services to “illegal aliens.”
Nebraska Vote to allow lawmakers to serve three, instead of two terms, and raise their salaries to $22,500 a year.
New Hampshire Vote to ban any new personal income taxes.
North Dakota Vote to make it a felony to “maliciously harm” a cat, dog or horse, except for those who work with animals.
Oklahoma Vote to ban affirmative action, except when gender is a “bona fide qualification.”
South Dakota Vote for a constitutional amendment that the budget must be balanced.
Utah Vote to exempt military personnel from property taxes.
Washington Vote to legalize and regulate the sale of “small amounts” of marijuana to people 21 and older.
Wyoming Vote to limit effects of ObamaCare by ensuring that no resident is forced to buy health care.
--Olivia Ward
To Republicans, a swath of tough new voting laws across 31 states is needed to cut down on “fraud” by illegal voters impersonating those who are dead or have moved elsewhere.
To Democrats, it’s a campaign to disenfranchise minority groups, the poor and elderly: people most likely to vote for Barack Obama on Nov. 6.
Court battles have pushed back some restrictions, but others will kick in after the current elections. Older U.S. voting rules allow would-be voters to be identified by documents other than standard photo ID, or poll workers who know them, and sign affidavits.
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) was concerned enough about reports from human rights groups to send a team of observers to report on the American polls — a move met with anger from Texas’s attorney-general, who threatened to arrest any observers who come within 100 feet of a polling entrance.
Tighter rules include:
Restrictive voter ID: Five states including Virginia, New Hampshire and Kansas made rules tightening regulations, and seven states have strict photo ID rules that stop voters from casting ballots without it. “Approximately 10 per cent of voting-age Americans today do not have driver’s licences or state-issued non-driver’s photo ID,” says the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Many more don’t have ID featuring their current address.
In some states voters can get “provisional ballots” without the regulation ID. But their ballots will not be counted until they return a few days later with one of the specified documents.
Early voting reductions: Crucial swing states Florida and Wisconsin made rules rolling back some early voting, but Ohio’s were blocked by the court. Three other states passed such laws.
Ex-con votes: Florida, Iowa and South Dakota made it harder to restore voting rights lost by those with criminal convictions.
Voter registration barriers: Laws restricting organized registration drives passed in Illinois, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, and Florida’s was partially blocked by court.
Sources: New York Times, The Hill, Brennan Center for Justice
These states are not firm supporters of either political party. Their electoral college votes (which decide on who gets to be president) are up for grabs this year.
Here's a look at eight key swing states and how many electoral college votes they hold compared with the 2008 election:
Colorado
9 electoral votes (unchanged)
2008: Obama
It could be the One That Counts if Romney wins in New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin. The ethnically mixed state is getting more so, as the Hispanic voting population grows. But will they vote? Last election it seemed so, with a big, historic bull’s eye for Democrat Obama. This time polls say it’s iffy. Romney is putting faith in the evangelical vote, which may not favour a Morman, and the military. Obama’s organizers are focusing on luring voters to the polls.
Florida
29 electoral votes (increase of two)
2008: Obama
The vote-rich Suntan State turned blue for Obama in the last election by fewer than 3 percentage points, possibly due to minority support: 96 per cent of the African-American vote, 57 per cent of Latino voters, and 52 per cent among independents, according to exit polls. But Florida has a strong bedrock Republican population, and Romney is currently neck-and-neck with Obama in opinion polls. Maverick conservative candidates could trim his numbers with right-wing voters.
Iowa
Six electoral votes (decrease of one)
2008: Obama
After tireless campaigning in the last election, Obama owned Iowa by a margin of 10 percentage points. But on closer scrutiny, the farm state has a split political personality: Democratic northeast and Republican southwest. Iowa’s main newspaper delivered a shock by switching support to Romney on economic grounds, and his strategists are working to peel away socially conservative rural folk who bristle at abortion and gay marriage.
Nevada
Six electoral votes (increase of one)
2008: Obama
With a high-roller’s knack for picking winners, Nevada has gone for the victorious candidates. In the last election voters outdid themselves, giving Obama a double-digit margin over John McCain. This time, maybe not so much. In spite of nearly 12 per cent unemployment, Obama still leads Romney in some polls, on economic issues. But Nevada’s devastated economy could yet be Romney’s ace in the highest-stakes game of political poker.
New Hampshire
Four electoral votes (unchanged)
2008: Obama
The “Live Free or Die” motto made this a famously independent-minded — some would say ornery — state. Romney hopes his freedom-from-government agenda will resonate here. Although New Hampshire handed Obama an overwhelming victory in the last election, he can’t take it for granted this time round. Romney, with strong ties to New England, is pressing Obama’s weakness on the deficit and touting his own chops as a free marketer.
Ohio
18 electoral votes (decrease of two)
2008: Obama
In the ultimate swing state, and birthplace of the hotdog, candidates are hungry for a large helping of juicy electoral votes. Obama had a comfortable win last time, but concentrated in the industrial northeast. Romney is aiming at more rural areas and towns such as Cincinnati, which formerly voted Republican. Ohio has benefited from Obama’s auto bailout, but Romney is battling back with attack ads claiming Chrysler is outsourcing Jeeps to China.
Virginia
13 electoral votes (unchanged)
2008: Obama
In a state where black voters were penalized by fees and literacy tests until 1965, it’s the minority vote that now tips the balance. Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win Virginia since 1964, backed by Hispanics and African-Americans. But Republicans clawed back three House seats from Democrats in 2010. Romney hopes the force is still with him. His emphasis on the shrinking navy in the last debate was aimed at Virginia’s Naval Station Norfolk.
Wisconsin
10 electoral votes (unchanged)
2008: Obama
Wisconsin gives and it takes away, often unpredictably. Although Obama won a resounding victory in the last poll, voters have a short attention span. A bitter battle over the attempted firing of far-right Republican Governor Scott Walker added to the bipolar politics, and his supporters declared that the Democrats were crushed. Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, is also a homeboy here. But Obama’s apparent strength in the Midwest makes this a guessing game.
The Star's team of reporters live-blogged the second U.S. presidential debate. Read a recap here.
Visitors walk under a relief bust of vice
president Joe Biden and republican congressman Paul Ryan at
Centre College in Danville, Kentucky Oct. 10. (Reuters/Matt Sullivan)
The Star's team of reporters - Mitch Potter, Tim Harper, Daniel Dale, Robert Benzie and Andrew Livingstone - live-blogged the U.S. vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan.
Click here for full coverage of the U.S. election.
While the 2012 U.S. Election is being viewed as the first full-on social media election (both Twitter and Facebook were at pre-mass popularity levels in 2008), it's also the first election where presidential candidates will face the lie detector test.
Wait, what?
No, they won't be sat down in a grimy chair with a beaming lamp shoved in their faces while they answer questions about what they'll do for the economy, to increase jobs, or with foreign policy — although, it would make for good television.
It’s less Hollywood movie-esque, but interesting nonetheless.
A non-partisan group in the United States in favour of limited government will put Obama and Romney to the test off-camera. Employing a new truth-detecting technology, Americans for Limited Government says they will measure voice patterns to determine whether Obama and Romney are telling the truth or not. The analysis also measures stress levels and level of concentration, the group says.
Unlike a traditional polygraph which requires a suspect’s cooperation and numerous probes on the person’s body voice analysis studies the words and speech pattern of the individual and determines if the statement was the truth “with a high degree of accuracy.”
Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, said the technology is a “breakthrough for the American people.” In a statement posted on the group’s website, Wilson wrote the results of the tests will be made public and voters will “better be able to judge what promises are real, and which ones are nothing more than political pandering.”
The statement also said “with words like inaccurate, person uncertain, false statement, highly stressed and truth, the user’s computer screen literally explodes with data related to the veracity of the subject’s assertions.”
The company behind the technology, Voice Analysis Technology, has been used by over six law enforcement agencies, including the U.S Department of Defense and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to interrogate suspects.
“The near real time analysis that Americans for Limited Government will be able to provide the public on the veracity of the statements made in the debate is a game changer in how people relate to politicians. The operating assumption by the general public is that if a politician’s mouth is moving, he or she must be lying, by putting Obama and Romney to the test, we will find out if this is true,” Wilson wrote.
It’ll be interesting to see what the results of this testing will prove – if anything.
- Andrew Livingstone, Staff reporter
Five things to watch for when Barack Obama and Mitt Romney meet in their first presidential debate Wednesday night.
Recent Comments