The 50th 1984 Ronald Reagan (Republican) 525

The electoral process in the United States is as follows:

When the United States was just founded 200 years ago, American sages designed the electoral system. At that time, the main purpose was to prevent politicians from making false promises to voters to defraud votes, and "electors" indirectly elected the president to gain advantages and avoid disadvantages. But today, this meaning has disappeared. It has nothing to do with indirect elections. There are no actual electors, only "electoral votes". This system mainly respects the rights of each state, and it is the embodiment of American people's decentralization and respect for local state rights.

There are 538 electoral votes in the United States, which is the total number of senators (100), representatives (435) and representatives (3) from Washington, DC. Senators are distributed by state, and each of the 50 States has 2 senators; Members of the House of Representatives are elected according to the population, and about 500,000 people choose one. For example, new york has a population of over 65,438+06 million, so there are 365,438+0 members of the House of Representatives and two senators, making a total of 33 electoral votes.

According to the electoral votes system, if any presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes in this state, even if he wins all electoral votes in this state, it is also called "winner takes all". More than half (270) of the 538 electoral votes won in each state were elected president.

Due to the winner-takes-all calculation method, there may be a phenomenon that a candidate wins the national popular vote per head, but loses the general election because the electoral votes are less than half. For example, in the last general election, Bush, the Republican candidate of the Democratic Party of China in Gorbi, gained 500,000 votes nationwide. However, because Bush finally won hundreds of votes from Gore in Florida, according to the winner-takes-all principle, Bush won all 25 electoral votes in the state, thus making more than half of his electoral votes in the country and being elected president.

There have always been people in the United States who think that the "elector" system is unreasonable and demand that it be abolished, and that a nationwide poll system be implemented, and whoever gets the majority of votes will be elected. According to Robert's research. Hardaway, the author of the Electoral College and the Constitution and a law professor at the University of Denver, in the past two hundred years, there have been more than 700 bills in the US Congress to abolish the electoral college system, but all of them ended in failure. In 200 years, it is equal to nearly four times a year on average, but why didn't they pass?

The reason is that the electoral system designed by American sages not only suits the national conditions of American federalism, but also embodies the true meaning of the people: respecting the minority and obeying the majority. Specifically, it has four advantages:

First, protect the interests of small countries. The United States is a federal system. In fact, 50 states are equivalent to 50 "states". The concepts of "state" and "province" are completely different. "Province" means centralization, and "state" means federation. Every state in the United States has independent judicial and legislative power. For example, state patrolmen are not allowed to cross state boundaries and enter other States without informing each other. If you drive across the United States, you will see a sign that says "Welcome to Honshu Island" in the middle of the state line. The state line is clearly defined.

The design of this system by American sages focused on decentralization rather than centralization, and its constitutional concept was to delegate power to the states and ensure equal rights of big states and small states at the federal level. For example, the power of the US Senate is greater than that of the House of Representatives, but the election of senators has nothing to do with the size and population of the state, but is rigidly distributed. Each state has two senators. The population of California is more than 60 times that of Rhode Island, but the number of federal senators in the largest and smallest states is exactly the same. At the beginning of the founding of the United States, those small States agreed to join the Federation, and one of the conditions was to ensure equal rights with big States and implement the "voter" system.

The system of "electors" conforms to the principle of "one person, one vote, and most of them are elected by the people", but the number of people in the whole country is not "units" but "States" as electoral units. This majority is not a nationwide "majority", but a majority of voters in each state, which can better protect the rights and interests of small States. This system forces presidential candidates to pay attention not only to several big States, but also to each state, and get a majority of votes in each state.

And if the nationwide vote counting method is implemented, then several large States with large populations will unite and it is possible to manipulate the election. For example, California, new york, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois and Ohio, the seven largest states in the United States, together account for half of the total population of the United States. If universal suffrage is implemented, then presidential candidates only need to canvass in these big States, instead of going to small States like Rhode Island and Alaska. Seven small States in the United States have only three electoral votes, and six small States have four electoral votes; If each state does not allocate two senators and does not implement the electoral system, these small rights and interests will be swallowed up by the big States. Although the population of Rhode Island is only one sixtieth of that of California, the electoral votes are one sixth of that of California 18, which protects the rights and interests of Rhode Island in a certain sense. Therefore, the "elector" system not only conforms to the federal situation of the United States, but also embodies the principle of obeying the majority and respecting the minority.

This "electoral votes" system is a bit like an NBA basketball game. Not according to the total number of points won in each game (equivalent to the national head count), but according to the number of games won (equivalent to electoral votes in each state). That is to say, there are 82 NBA games in a season. Instead of accumulating the points won in each game, the calculation unit is each "game". The champion who won the most competitions was the division champion. This calculation better reflects the real overall strength of this team.

The second advantage of the "electoral vote" system is that the winner takes all, and the president can be elected at one time, unlike other countries where the first round of presidential votes is less than half, the second round of elections is held. Because as long as there is a second round of elections, there will be political sharing and trading, and as a result, voters will be distorted and forced to vote for other candidates.

For more than 200 years, the United States has implemented the "electoral system". On one occasion, it was because the national electoral votes of two candidates were equal, and on another occasion, the votes were divided equally among three candidates, and no one was more than half. The House of Representatives voted for the president among the candidates. According to the Constitution of the United States, when the House of Representatives votes on this arbitration, not all the 435 members of the House of Representatives vote, but each state has one vote, and more than half of the votes in 26 States can be elected president. This provision once again shows the protection and attention to the rights and interests of the state. There were only two votes in the House of Representatives in the United States in 200 years, and the accident rate was 1%, which proved that the "voter" system was quite effective.

Third, the "elector" system can produce a president immediately, instead of counting the votes of the head of state. Every vote in every village and town must be counted, so that the president cannot be produced for a long time.

In the last US presidential election, several counties in Florida spent several weeks recounting the votes. If the number of votes in the general election is quite close, it is necessary to recount the votes nationwide until every village. Then all 50 States in the United States count their votes in this way, and I'm afraid it will take several months to elect a president. The longer the president is elected, the more likely there will be political trouble, because those political animals will use their brains to take advantage of this time difference.

The "elector" system is implemented, and the winner takes all, and the president is elected immediately on the election day. The loser admits that he lost the election, and the winner gives a speech on his election, and the election is over. This way of counting votes immediately and calculating election results overnight by machine can avoid political disputes that may be caused by prolonged time.

According to Professor Hardway's research, in the two hundred years since the United States implemented the electoral system, "the president was elected immediately almost every time, and the last election dispute was a rare exception in history." Moreover, since the implementation of this system for more than 200 years, only four candidates (including Gore's) have been ahead of the national popular vote, but they have lost the election because of the loss of electoral votes; It is equal to four times in two centuries, and the frequency is extremely small.

The fourth is not to produce many small parties, so that the constitutional system is relatively stable. For more than 200 years since the founding of the United States, the two major political parties have been in power by turns, instead of many small parties like other people-led countries, which is directly related to the "election" system that the United States has been implementing. Because the electoral system takes the "state" as the "counting unit" and implements the "winner takes all" rules of the game, the winner includes all the votes, so the candidates who get the second and third most votes get nothing. There is only one winner in each state's election results, and there is no second or third place, so there will be no small party, let alone a multi-party system with proportional political parties.

If there are too many political parties, especially the multi-party system with proportional representation of political parties, two small parties can unite against less than half of the big party, or multi-party joint governance will easily lead to cabinet instability and frequent elections. In India, known as the largest democracy in the world, small parties are "clustered" because of the proportional system of political parties. At present, more than 30 political parties have seats in Parliament.

1In April 1998, the Bharatiya Janata Party won the national election. Because there is no more than half of the seats, we have to unite with other small party groups. However, after only 375 days in power, one of the small parties with only 18 seats was defeated by a vote of no confidence, leading to an early election in India. The Bharatiya Janata Party can only form a new cabinet if it unites more than half of the 24 small parties.

The United States implements the "electoral system", leaving little room for small parties to survive, and the two major political parties take turns to govern. There is no phenomenon that many small parties unite to vote no confidence and end the cabinet. The president was impeached for breaking the law and the vice president succeeded him. There is no need to dissolve the cabinet and advance the national election, thus stabilizing the political situation.

Any electoral system has its shortcomings, but judging from its history and characteristics of more than 200 years, although it has shortcomings, it is more in line with the national conditions of American federalism and embodies the democratic principle. Therefore, for those Americans who clamored for the abolition of the electoral system, Professor Hardaway lamented that "this system has been effective for the past two hundred years, and Americans have been spoiled."

From: /p/768030653

Voter's (political party's) electoral votes in an election year.

George Washington (independent) 69

The second session 1792 George Washington (non-partisan) 132

The Third john adams (Federalist Party) 7 1.

The fourth session 1800 Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican Party) 73

Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican Party) Fifth Session 1804 162

The 6th james madison (Democratic Republican Party) 1808+022.

No.7 18 12 james madison (Democratic Republican Party) 128

The 8th james monroe (Democratic Republican Party) 18 16.

The 9th james monroe (Democratic Republican Party) 2 15/2 18.

John quincy adams (Democratic Republican Party)

Andrew jackson (People First Party) 178

Andrew jackson (People First Party) 2 19

Martin Van Buren (People First Party) 170

William henry harrison (Whig Party)

15 Meeting 1844 james knox polk (People First Party)

Zachary Taylor (Civil Rights Party) 163

Franklin pierce (People First Party) 254

James buchanan (People First Party)

Abraham lincoln (Republican Party) 180

No.20 1864 abraham lincoln (National Unity Party) 2 12

Hiram grant (Republican)

No.22 1872 hiram grant (Republican Party) 286

No.23 1876 Rutherford Bertha Hayes (Republican) 185

The 24th james garfield (Republican Party) 2 1880

No.25 1884 Grover Cleveland (People First Party) 2 19

No.26 1888 Benjamin Harrison (Republican Party) 233

27th 1892 Grover Cleveland (People First Party) 277

28th william mckinley (Republican Party) 1896+0

No.29 1900 william mckinley (Republican Party) 292

Theodore roosevelt (Republican) 336

William howard taft (Republican)

The 32nd session 19 12 Woodrow Wilson (People First Party) 435

The 33rd 19 16 Woodrow Wilson (People First Party) 277

The 34th 1920 Warren Gamaliel Harding (Republican) 404

The 35th 1924 John Calvin Coolidge (Republican) 382

The 36th herbert hoover (Republican) 444+0928

No.37 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (People First Party) 472

No.38 1936 franklin delano roosevelt (People First Party) 523

No.39 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (People First Party) 449

Franklin delano roosevelt (People First Party) 432

Harry Truman (People First Party) 303

Dwight eisenhower (Republican) 442

Dwight eisenhower (Republican) 457

The 44th session 1960 John F. Kennedy (People's Party) 303

45th Session 1964 lyndon johnson (People First Party) 486

The 46th session 1968 Richard Nixon (Republican) 30 1

Richard Nixon (Republican) 520

Jimmy Carter (People First Party) 297

Ronald Reagan (Republican) 489

The 50th 1984 Ronald Reagan (Republican) 525

George herbert walker bush (Republican) 426

The 52nd session 1992 Bill Clinton (People First Party) 370

The 53rd session 1996 Bill Clinton (People First Party) 379

No.54 george walker bush 2000 (Republican) 27 1

The 55th 2004 george walker bush (Republican) 286

In 2008, the 56th Obama (People First Party) 364

I hope I can help you!

Hope to adopt!