Explaining To Thais American Electoral College

[cm-happy]

I've tried explaining to my Thai friends the American electoral college and that sometimes thea candidaes for President & Vice president, even though they may win the popuar vote, lose the election because of the electoral college. This happened in the past.

anyway is difficult to try to explain to Thais about the Electoral college and how each State has a fixed number of electors(some more, some less) who are the ones who really vote for the Pres & vice pres. and when Citizens vote, they are not really voting directly for the candidates but for electors.

[cm-happy]

I've tried explaining to my Thai friends, when they ask me about American elections, the American electoral college and that sometimes the candidates for President & Vice president, even though they may win the popular vote, lose the election because of the electoral college. This happened in the past.

Anyway is difficult to try to explain to Thais about the Electoral college and how each State has a fixed number of electors(some more, some less) who are the ones who really vote for the Pres & vice pres. and when Citizens vote, they are not really voting directly for the candidates but for electors.

Their reaction is usually "Americans crazy". I just smile and change the subject.

Any American in LOS expats out there encounter the same problem when Thai people ask them about American elections?

[backflip]

You explained it perfectly. The US has a "representative democracy", and the electoral college is part of that.

[chevykanteve]

I've tried explaining to my Thai friends, when they ask me about American elections, the American electoral college and that sometimes the candidates for President & Vice president, even though they may win the popular vote, lose the election because of the electoral college. This happened in the past.

Anyway is difficult to try to explain to Thais about the Electoral college and how each State has a fixed number of electors(some more, some less) who are the ones who really vote for the Pres & vice pres. and when Citizens vote, they are not really voting directly for the candidates but for electors.

Their reaction is usually "Americans crazy". I just smile and change the subject.

Any American in LOS expats out there encounter the same problem when Thai people ask them about American elections?

With all due respect, I think most Americans are also confused by the concept of the electoral college. And perhaps some of those (Americans) who do understand it question the need for its existence in modern times.

[PeaceBlondie]

Not too many Thais are that interested in the American electoral system, although I might try explaining that to a lady that's been teaching social sciences to Thais for 20 years. I might mention that the first Americans leaders did not trust the workers to vote properly, and at first only allowed White, male, free, educated property owners to vote.

[PadThaiGuy]

If the popular vote decided the election, the candidates would only campaign in the large popolation centers and ignore the small states.

With the electoral college system, the smaller states get some needed attention.

[PeaceBlondie]

Trying to equate that to Thailand, it would mean the national candidates would have to visit every province.

[naka]

Not too many Thais are that interested in the American electoral system, although I might try explaining that to a lady that's been teaching social sciences to Thais for 20 years. I might mention that the first Americans leaders did not trust the workers to vote properly, and at first only allowed White, male, free, educated property owners to vote.

Yea ! They changed that ... And got "W", good move.

Bring back Bi er Hillary

Naka.

[jumnien]

In Thailand, the PPP will probably win the popular vote. However, they will not win the bid for power as the losers will form a coalition party and appoint a Prime Minister of their chosing. Same same, but different.

[ProThaiExpat]

I believe the new constitution provides for some members of parliment to be chosen by the elected members of parliment or by means other than direct election. Same concept and may help to give a Thai based example of indirect election of representatives.

Also, during the constitution drafting phase, there was much talk about the direct election of a Prime Minister or the indirect method used by the U.K. Certainly this is an example of the election of the leader of the government by means other than direct election. I am not sure which method was decided on.

Edited December 23, 2007 by ProThaiExpat

[Beardog]

The electoral system could have been changed many years ago as there are just as many yes votes & just as many no votes in any givin state. With the age old business as usual within the Good OLD Boys network They failed miserably to make the promises of more wealth for the wealthier Thusly turning the vast overbalances into a lot more of a level playing field. My friends in the Midwest now after the Bush legacy can see our very antiquated system needs to be overhauled. Seems to me that argument about why the need for the electoral college was needed for the top wealth in the country, truly few believe that what it was intended for should be dismantlement as It just does not work anymore. why the heck do I need some BOZO negating my vote. It takes away from our basic freedom. if I am dead wrong how come most school elections do not have any bull.... Electoral system to represent them. The popular vote is the only way the people have any influence in their way they are to be governed. At least if you voted wrong it really is on you . After the 2004 vote of voting 34 years of voting I have lost all respect for this dying piece of paper & makes me wonder why vote a chad here a deal their. At least we could keep our own corruption down to a minimum.

Now the Thai's with a 18 team -15 team system seems more of the same subterfuge to use all the unknowns as cannon fodder while the controlling party(we all know who this is) Takes the prize. Sure sounds almost the same as your vote is just as negated.I remember going to college how neat the electoral college idea was. along with checks & balances in all 3 divisions of the justice system. Now it is Blank checks & what checks & balances? now the only checks are going to the politicians & the balances are making sure all their balances are looking good.

IMHO I think if the U.S. would disband this antiquated system & implement a popular vote system. It might restore some of the world actually not having a negative reaction to Our great country that we lost since the end of 2000.Sorry for any off topic rant , but it is time to dismantle the dead horse system & give our future politicians (in the 20-50 year bracket ) a real chance to put the U.S. back in grace once again. Do we need another cold war to get a clue? And that is truly the saddest part CM Happy, Why do we need to give the electoral college the ability to take our vote & twist it for their propose.In the past it worked-But I can't count one one hand my republican- democratic or independent friends that would agree that this is a working program for the masses.Sounds more akin to a dictatorship!

Barry

Barry

Edited December 23, 2007 by Beardog

[h90]

I've tried explaining to my Thai friends the American electoral college and that sometimes thea candidaes for President & Vice president, even though they may win the popuar vote, lose the election because of the electoral college. This happened in the past.

anyway is difficult to try to explain to Thais about the Electoral college and how each State has a fixed number of electors(some more, some less) who are the ones who really vote for the Pres & vice pres. and when Citizens vote, they are not really voting directly for the candidates but for electors.

Most european don't see the american system as democratic, considering that the last non democrat/non republican president was 1850 and both parties get more or less equal money from the industry. So no chance for any newcomer at all.

[ProThaiExpat]

Beardog: You are not alone. There is presently a constitutional amendment being circulated among the states to do away with the electoral college. You can google the issue and see how many states have ratified it. My guess somwhere around 30.

[kdvsn]

Beardog: You are not alone. There is presently a constitutional amendment being circulated among the states to do away with the electoral college. You can google the issue and see how many states have ratified it. My guess somwhere around 30.

Can you name one state that has voted either for or against that ammendment?

[Jingthing]

Its only been a problem twice in American history. Keep it.

[mogoso]

The electoral system could have been changed many years ago as there are just as many yes votes & just as many no votes in any givin state. With the age old business as usual within the Good OLD Boys network They failed miserably to make the promises of more wealth for the wealthier Thusly turning the vast overbalances into a lot more of a level playing field. My friends in the Midwest now after the Bush legacy can see our very antiquated system needs to be overhauled. Seems to me that argument about why the need for the electoral college was needed for the top wealth in the country, truly few believe that what it was intended for should be dismantlement as It just does not work anymore. why the heck do I need some BOZO negating my vote. It takes away from our basic freedom. if I am dead wrong how come most school elections do not have any bull.... Electoral system to represent them. The popular vote is the only way the people have any influence in their way they are to be governed. At least if you voted wrong it really is on you . After the 2004 vote of voting 34 years of voting I have lost all respect for this dying piece of paper & makes me wonder why vote a chad here a deal their. At least we could keep our own corruption down to a minimum.

Now the Thai's with a 18 team -15 team system seems more of the same subterfuge to use all the unknowns as cannon fodder while the controlling party(we all know who this is) Takes the prize. Sure sounds almost the same as your vote is just as negated.I remember going to college how neat the electoral college idea was. along with checks & balances in all 3 divisions of the justice system. Now it is Blank checks & what checks & balances? now the only checks are going to the politicians & the balances are making sure all their balances are looking good.

IMHO I think if the U.S. would disband this antiquated system & implement a popular vote system. It might restore some of the world actually not having a negative reaction to Our great country that we lost since the end of 2000.Sorry for any off topic rant , but it is time to dismantle the dead horse system & give our future politicians (in the 20-50 year bracket ) a real chance to put the U.S. back in grace once again. Do we need another cold war to get a clue? And that is truly the saddest part CM Happy, Why do we need to give the electoral college the ability to take our vote & twist it for their propose.In the past it worked-But I can't count one one hand my republican- democratic or independent friends that would agree that this is a working program for the masses.Sounds more akin to a dictatorship!

Barry

Barry

Sure its a working program for the masses. It allows those from the smaller states to have a voice in the outcome. Originally the president was voted on by congress and not popular vote. Originally senators were appointed by their individual states.

Without the electoral college only a handful of states and the majority of that vote from a handful of metro areas would decide the outcome of every election. It would be a socialist democrat victor everytime, without any hope of a socialist republican being heard.

[david96]

I've tried explaining to my Thai friends the American electoral college and that sometimes thea candidaes for President & Vice president, even though they may win the popuar vote, lose the election because of the electoral college. This happened in the past.

anyway is difficult to try to explain to Thais about the Electoral college and how each State has a fixed number of electors(some more, some less) who are the ones who really vote for the Pres & vice pres. and when Citizens vote, they are not really voting directly for the candidates but for electors.

You might try and explain the US system to those of us in the rest of the English speaking world, you would be a lot better off if you had a Prime Minister and a President that had limited powers.

[alaina]

The electoral college is probably least effective part of the system that was designed to be a democracy with safeguards in place to keep the yahoos from running the place. (Yes, the idea is elitist, but then again, has it worked?) Electors were supposed to be local figures that would be able to vote differently than the voters if someone completely unsuitable had won the majority. Nowadays, electors are people that are often seeking government offices themselves and voting against the majority would be political suicide. (No, it has not worked.)

Some of the better ideas about promoting a meaningful democracy were about economics and education, which is the divide that is hurting Thailand as well as many other developing democracies. Secondary education until age 16 also became mandatory when more Americans gained suffrage. Stricter child labor laws were enacted and the American school year holidays correspond when most crops are picked. I don't think that Thailand would be able to really enact these policies nor do many of the "elite" want them.

After the coup, I asked some of the students that I teach at international school if they believed that a "government of the people" was something that was good for Thailand. The students realize that one out of six Thais lives in Bangkok and that the country is very lopsided as far as education and economics. The answer was, "no" from the students. Having the image of democracy looks evolved to the West, but many of the nation's elite don't want the opinions of the provinces counted nor do they want them to have the economic power and education to be considered as something other than lowly subsistence farmers.

[cm-happy]

I've tried explaining to my Thai friends the American electoral college and that sometimes thea candidaes for President & Vice president, even though they may win the popuar vote, lose the election because of the electoral college. This happened in the past.

anyway is difficult to try to explain to Thais about the Electoral college and how each State has a fixed number of electors(some more, some less) who are the ones who really vote for the Pres & vice pres. and when Citizens vote, they are not really voting directly for the candidates but for electors.

You might try and explain the US system to those of us in the rest of the English speaking world, you would be a lot better off if you had a Prime Minister and a President that had limited powers.

I think the rest of the English speaking world is capable of researching that for themselves. But to answere you question in a nutshell, the Pres does have limited powers as per the checks and balances in place between the executive,legislative and juditial branches of US Gov't.

Next thing you'll be advocating is replacing the Republic with a Monarchy as head of state and a PM. scraping the Consitution and relying upon tradition. Remember we tried that a few hundred yeas ago and threw Him, and His system out!

At the time there was a debate in Congress about what form of government the new nation should have. A constitutional

Monarchy,Democracy or Republic. George W. was offered the title of George I. Can you image hehe. Anyway a Republic was decided, Ben Franklin made a famous quote that "we have a Republic if we can keep it". No Constituion, at the time but governed by the Articles of Confederation. Enough of this! I'm hungry need to fix dinner

Edited December 23, 2007 by cm-happy

[Beavis and Butthead]

Its only been a problem twice in American history. Keep it.

We, from opposite parties, agree on this. Keep the system; our forefathers devised it for a reason.

[cm-happy]

Its only been a problem twice in American history. Keep it.

We, from opposite parties, agree on this. Keep the system; our forefathers devised it for a reason.

AMEN!!

If only our contemporary leaders had the wisdom of the founding fathers

[cm-happy]

After the coup, I asked some of the students that I teach at international school if they believed that a "government of the people" was something that was good for Thailand. The students realize that one out of six Thais lives in Bangkok and that the country is very lopsided as far as education and economics. The answer was, "no" from the students. Having the image of democracy looks evolved to the West, but many of the nation's elite don't want the opinions of the provinces counted nor do they want them to have the economic power and education to be considered as something other than lowly subsistence farmers.

Alaina, should you not have quoted correctly from Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address? A government OF the people, By the people FOR the people and stressed the FOR the people part. Doubt if your students would have disagreed.

[Spee]

I've tried explaining to my Thai friends the American electoral college and that sometimes thea candidaes for President & Vice president, even though they may win the popuar vote, lose the election because of the electoral college. This happened in the past.

anyway is difficult to try to explain to Thais about the Electoral college and how each State has a fixed number of electors(some more, some less) who are the ones who really vote for the Pres & vice pres. and when Citizens vote, they are not really voting directly for the candidates but for electors.

I would try to explain it in the broader sense that the American system is based upon checks and balances, separation of powers and states' rights. An example of separation of powers are the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. An example of checks and balances is the president's veto power over a legislative vote and the legislature's ability to override a veto if there are enough votes. An example of state's rights is each state has their own driver's license rather than a federal driver's license. The electoral college system is probably most closely linked to the system of checks and balances and the fact that the American system is a democratic republic as opposed to a pure democracy. These methodologies would be beneficial to Thailand, IMHO, because there is too much power in the central government, and specifically in the "executive" branch of the government, especially now after the coup. The country could also benefit from more power being distributed out to the individual provinces

[Jingthing]

Its only been a problem twice in American history. Keep it.

We, from opposite parties, agree on this. Keep the system; our forefathers devised it for a reason.

AMEN!!

If only our contemporary leaders had the wisdom of the founding fathers

Yes, as far as I am concerned, the bad result of the last problem in 2000 was caused by the Supreme Court, not the electoral college system. Shame on the Supreme Court as it was one of their most tragically bad decisions in history.

[ProThaiExpat]

Beardog: You are not alone. There is presently a constitutional amendment being circulated among the states to do away with the electoral college. You can google the issue and see how many states have ratified it. My guess somwhere around 30.

Can you name one state that has voted either for or against that ammendment?

kdvsn: My apologies, wishful thinking I guess morphed me into thinking it got further.

""What was not discussed in the aftermath of the 2000 election was the little-known fact that the United States came very close to abolishing the Electoral College in the late 1960s. A constitutional amendment calling for direct popular election of the president was backed by the American Bar Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters, and a host of other un-fuzzy-minded pillars of civil society. On Sept. 18, 1969, the House of Representatives passed the amendment by a huge bipartisan vote of 338 to 70. President Nixon endorsed it, and prospects for passage in the Senate seemed reasonably good. A poll of state legislatures indicated that the amendment would likely be approved by the requisite three-quarters of the states.

Strom Thurmond

Senator Strom

Thurmond fought

to preserve the

Electoral College

"The effort ultimately failed — but not because of concerted opposition from the small states. In fact, many political leaders from small states supported the amendment. What blocked the reform movement was a more troublesome cleavage — one involving race and the political power of the South...

"Amendments calling for a direct popular vote had also been introduced as early as 1816, but for most of our history such proposals were doomed by a stark political reality: The South would never accept them. The issue was not small states versus big states but slavery and racial discrimination.

"Before the Civil War, the "three-fifths compromise" in the Constitution meant that slaves counted (as three-fifths of a person) towards a state's representation in Congress and thus in the Electoral College. Had the president been elected by a popular vote, Southern influence would have shrunk sharply, limited to the number of votes actually cast.

"This system operated even more perniciously during the Jim Crow era (extending into the 1960s), when the white South benefited from what could be called the "five fifths" clause: African Americans counted fully towards representation in Congress and the Electoral College, but they still could not vote. The number of votes actually cast in the South between 1900 and 1960 was tiny in comparison to the size of its electoral vote. A popular election for president, thus, would have dramatically reduced the political power of the South while creating pressure for Southern states to expand the franchise...

"The Senate Judiciary Committee was chaired by James Eastland of Mississippi and counted Strom Thurmond among its members. Both men were die-hard segregationists who had voted against every civil-rights and voting-rights measure that had come before them. Neither wanted to have presidents elected by a national, popular vote.

"In 1969, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to abolish the Electoral College by a huge bipartisan vote of 338 to 70. President Nixon endorsed it, and prospects for passage in the Senate seemed reasonably good. A poll of state legislatures indicated that the amendment would likely be approved by the requisite three-quarters of the states."

However, Senators Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and James Eastland (D-MS), die-hard segregationists who had voted against every civil-rights and voting-rights measure that had come before them, opposed having presidents elected by a national, popular vote, and fought fiercely to stall the measure for nearly a year, until support for it finally waned."

[cm-happy]

Its only been a problem twice in American history. Keep it.

We, from opposite parties, agree on this. Keep the system; our forefathers devised it for a reason.

AMEN!!

If only our contemporary leaders had the wisdom of the founding fathers

Yes, as far as I am concerned, the bad result of the last problem in 2000 was caused by the Supreme Court, not the electoral college system. Shame on the Supreme Court as it was one of their most tragically bad decisions in history.

Yes, you're correct about Bush/Gore in 2000 since the Supreme Court halted the recount. Gore decided not to press the issue

Prior to that however,

Rutherford B. Hays V. Samual Tilden--Tilden won popular vote, Hays the electoral vote

and

Benjamin Harrison V. Grover Cleveland--Cleveland won popular vote also Harrison the electoral vote

[Scott]

Interesting thread because we were talking about elections last week and I was explaining the US system to my bright, adult class. We got on the electoral system and everything was OK until somebody asked a question--all of a sudden I realized I didn't really understand exactly how it worked! I hate when that happens.

[cm-happy]

Interesting thread because we were talking about elections last week and I was explaining the US system to my bright, adult class. We got on the electoral system and everything was OK until somebody asked a question--all of a sudden I realized I didn't really understand exactly how it worked! I hate when that happens.

Teachers can hardly be expected to know everything about everything.

What a good opportunity, however, to break the class into teams to do independent research on the matter.

[CaptHaddock]

I might mention that the first Americans leaders did not trust the workers to vote properly, and at first only allowed White, male, free, educated property owners to vote.

Few Americans understand that the Electoral College exists because of slavery, which is not surprising given the misleading history of the period that we learned in school. The South would not have joined the Union without anti-democratic provisions to enable them to balance their interests against those of the more populous North. The first of these provisions was the Three Fifths Compromise which increased representation of Southern states in the House of Representatives by counting each slave as three fifths of a citizen. Direct, popular election of the President would have enabled the North to determine the outcome of presidental elections because they had more than double the population. So the Electoral College was created to preserve the unfair representation of the South in the House of Representatives in choosing the President. (Each state is allocated votes in the Electoral College as a total of its number of Senators, which is always two, and its Representatives, whose number is determined by the state's population of citizens, inflated in the South by including three fifths of the disenfranchised slaves.) It goes without saying that House members from the South could hardly have been representing the interests of the slaves.

The election of 1860 was the first in which a Northerner, Lincoln, was elected without the support of any Southern states, a result made possible only by the four-way field of candidates: Lincoln, Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell. Lincoln won in the Electoral College without a majority of the popular vote.

[mogoso]

Its only been a problem twice in American history. Keep it.

We, from opposite parties, agree on this. Keep the system; our forefathers devised it for a reason.

AMEN!!

If only our contemporary leaders had the wisdom of the founding fathers

Yes, as far as I am concerned, the bad result of the last problem in 2000 was caused by the Supreme Court, not the electoral college system. Shame on the Supreme Court as it was one of their most tragically bad decisions in history.

Shame on the court? The court decided with the Demos, you can recount the ballots, but,,, you must recount all counties in the state not a select few demo strongholds. You might be protesting fairness.

Additionally Owlgore send hundreds of lawyers into the state into every county and sucessfully stopped the counting of the absentee ballots of military personal that arrived late. No fault of the soldiers, but of the delivery system.

I didn't have a dog in that fight haveing voted Libertarian, but I can read the courts decision, and a court with a liberal slant, verdict was fair and equalible.