Electoral Votes; Choosing the President of the United States with the Vote of 538 Individuals

The Electoral College, despite its complex execution, has a simple concept. Technically, in the United States, instead of ordinary people, a group of 538 individuals elects the President. These 538 individuals represent people from across the country, and ultimately, the person who can obtain more than 50 percent of the votes from this group will become President. Thus, any candidate who reaches 270 votes or more will be elected President. However, how each of these 538 individuals votes is determined by the direct votes of ordinary people. In other words, each of these individuals will vote for the candidate that the people in their region have voted for. This group actually represents the 50 states of the United States and the Washington D.C. area, and their number is exactly equal to the number of representatives each state has in the House of Representatives and the Senate. For example, California has 53 seats in the House of Representatives because it is a large state with a large population. This state also has two senators, which is the same for all states. Thus, California will have 55 votes for the presidential election. By the same calculation, Texas has 38 votes, and New York and Florida each have 29 votes. Why is the President of the United States elected indirectly instead of simply counting votes across the country? One of the central answers to this question lies in the historical roots of the establishment of the American Republic. The United States gained independence from Britain 240 years ago, at a time when, for example, in a country like Iran, Karim Khan Zand was embroiled in a civil war to establish an absolute monarchy. At such a time, the idea of electing the head of state by popular vote was not easy for the American founders. Candice Nelson, a political science professor at American University and an expert on the history and methods of elections in the United States, answers the question of why such a system was created in America: "Because the founders of America had doubts about the level of information of ordinary people. However, they also wanted ordinary people to have a role in the presidential election process. Therefore, they created a system where ordinary people could vote and their votes would be effective. But at the same time, they designated a group of elites as electors, who cast the final vote each December." In other words, according to the founders of America, known as the "Founding Fathers," trusting ordinary people's votes to elect the President was not possible. It should be noted that at the beginning of the American Republic, the right to vote was also limited to white men. Among the first 13 states at the beginning of the American Republic, only three states allowed landless men to vote! Even in these three states, only men who paid taxes among those without land had the right to vote. For this reason, in 1789, only 10 percent of the American population was allowed to vote in elections. The painting "Declaration of Independence" by John Trumbull depicts the Founding Fathers of America. However, the issue of voting rights was gradually resolved, and over time, more groups of American citizens were allowed to vote in elections. However, they were never allowed to directly elect their President, and to this day, there remains an intermediary between them and the election of the President. Lara Brown, a professor at George Washington University and director of the Graduate School of Political Management at the university, believes that a fundamental issue related to the Electoral College is the role assigned to states in the federal system of America. She says: "Our constitutional writers wanted both the votes of the people to be effective and for states to have significance as political units. That is why in the legislative branch of the United States, we have the House of Representatives based on the votes of the people. Each state with a larger population has more representatives and more electoral districts; approximately one representative for every 700,000 people. But we have the Senate, where it does not matter how large a state is or how many people it has. There, all states are equal, and each has two representatives." Thus, in the U.S. Senate, a state like Wyoming, which has a population of 600,000, has equal weight with a state like California, which has nearly 40 million residents. Ms. Brown believes that the Electoral College follows this same logic: "What happens is that people vote through their states. This means that any candidate who receives the most votes within a state obtains that state's electoral votes or electors. The number of electors for each state is the total number of representatives from that state in the House of Representatives and their senators in the Senate. This model forces candidates to strive to win elections in each individual state. And when we say we have 50 states along with Washington D.C., it means we have 51 separate elections held on one day. The election winner is the one who wins the most elections out of those 51 elections." However, this system faces a fundamental criticism: that it is always possible in very close races for one candidate to receive the most popular votes but not achieve a majority of electoral votes among the 538 electoral votes. This has happened four times in history. The last example of such a situation was in 2000 when Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, received more popular votes but lost the election to George W. Bush because Bush won in more states and had more electoral votes. Ms. Brown, author of the book "Burning Water and Fire for the Presidency of the United States," discusses this electoral issue in America: "Such a situation only occurs when elections are very, very close, and it has happened only four times in the past two centuries. When public opinion is split 50-50, there is no system in the world that can be completely convincing. If one person receives 50.1 percent of the votes and another receives 49.9 percent, is it entirely fair for the second person to be declared the loser due to this small difference? In the American system, this problem does not exist." And of course, in this system, a candidate can receive less than 50 percent of the popular votes but still win more than 50 percent of the electoral votes and be declared the winner. If the predictions for the 2016 election hold true, this election could become such a case, which, according to Ms. Brown, due to the unique characteristics of the Electoral College system, will not be problematic. Lara Brown states: "In the 2016 election, if Hillary Clinton wins, she will most likely not receive the majority of the popular votes. She is likely to receive more votes, meaning 45, 46, or 47 percent of the votes, while Donald Trump will likely receive fewer votes, around 41 or 42 percent for various reasons. However, neither of them is expected to receive over 50 percent of the votes, and it is predicted that other parties besides the two main parties will receive up to 10 percent of the votes. If this happens, ultimately, the majority of participants in the election will vote for someone other than Hillary. But in the electoral votes, Hillary Clinton will likely lead with a significant majority over the others." Nevertheless, in today's world, the concept of elections and the people's vote is linked to rules like one citizen, one vote, and in mature democracies around the world, there is a significant effort to equalize the value of citizens' votes. Furthermore, unlike two centuries ago, the literacy and information levels of ordinary citizens have changed, and alongside significant developments in news technologies, public awareness about the country's situation, fundamental problems, the President's duties, and candidates' programs has increased. However, there is no indication of the possibility of changing electoral laws in the United States to transform it into a nationwide election like in countries such as the French Republic. Why? Candice Nelson from American University answers this question: "If it were to change, it should have happened after the 2000 election and Al Gore's defeat despite receiving more votes. Such a change requires a constitutional amendment, which is a very difficult and serious process. If the events of 2000 did not lead to efforts to change the constitution, I doubt anyone else could make such a change. At that time, the issue went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled. The important thing is that the American people accepted that opinion." Lara Brown, a professor at George Washington University, also believes that this issue is rooted in American political culture: "Every country creates a system that represents its political culture. Our federalism in the United States relies on the concept that states, as political units, should have some power at the national level. In this system, larger states have more power and influence in the central government. But this should not mean that smaller states are always affected by larger states. In the Electoral College system, a state as small as New Hampshire becomes important. As it did in this election and had significance in previous elections as well. Because those four electoral votes they have are not predetermined, and both parties must compete for them." Perhaps that is why holding the presidential election in the United States is a lengthy process that begins months before the election day, with campaign headquarters engaged in enormous budgets. Competing in 51 elections to win is no small political project, and the final winner also takes over the executive branch of one of the oldest republics in the world; the only republic in the world that has continued its existence for over 200 years without interruption and has peacefully transferred power through elections every time without exception.