Embarrassing question about the Electoral votes:

[gateley]

If a State has three, for example, do ALL of them have to vote the same way? Or can 2 vote one way, the remaining one the other?

So, for Alaska, will it be "Alaska gives its three electoral votes to..." Or COULD it be "Alaska gives two electoral votes to McCain, and one electoral vote to Obama"?

I did some half-assed research, found out a some stuff, but didn't get my answer to this question.

Thanks! :blush:

[KingFlorez]

1. They have to give all of them

[darius15]

2. 48 states +DC give all their electoral votes to the winner

Only nebraska and Maine split their electoral votes. They give Half to the winner, and they split the rest by congressional district. It doesnt matter though because Maine is very blue and Nebraska is very red. If this rule applied in a big swing state like Ohio, it would be a fight for every congressional district.

[gateley]

5. Boy, we don't do ANYTHING simply, do we? Thanks! Now I get it! nt

[DarthDem]

9. Not Half . . .

Minor correction - - otherwise you're spot on. Maine has 4 EVs and Nebraska 5. Each state awards two EVs to the overall winner, and the remainder are allocated to the winners of each of the Congressional districts. In Maine, that's two proportional/district votes, and in Nebraska, it's three.

[darius15]

12. Ah, you're right.

I was under the assumption that both Nebraska and Maine had 4 electoral votes.:P

I guess me and the OP both learned something new!

[RNdaSilva]

23. The number of electoral votes allocated to each state...

is equal to the number of U.S. Representatives and Senators representing that state. Every state has two Senators, Reps by pop.

[RNdaSilva]

24. Weird, I never thought about this before...

Six states have more U.S. Senators (2), than members of the U.S. House of Representative (1).

Alaska, for example, has two Senators and one Representative. Three electoral votes.

By contrast, California has 2 Senators and 53 Represenatatives. Fifty-five electoral votes.

Think I got that right.

[margotb822]

3. It depends on the state

Most states are winner take all (except Nebraska and Maine, I think). Which is why, for so many years, candidates have only focused on winning certain states. CA and NY are large states and a lock for Dems, so they focus on other 'swing' states. It's all about 270.

[gateley]

6. Thanks! My education continues, thanks to you guys!! nt

[liberalpragmatist]

14. That's actually one proposed strategy for moving to a popular vote

According to the constitution, how a state allocates its electoral votes is entirely up to its state legislature. Since the 1820s, every state has awarded it to the winner of its popular vote. And as others explained, at least right now, Nebraska and Maine can split their electoral votes -- they award a vote each for each congressional district that's won and they give the final two electoral votes to the overall winner (given that Nebraska's very red and Maine very blue, it has never actually happened).

Obviously, MANY people would like to see an end to the Electoral College, but it's VERY difficult. Enough states benefit from the Electoral College that they can block a constitutional amendment.

So one approach that is now being tried is for states to collectively decide to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The initiative is called the National Popular Vote pact, and according to its terms, no state will actually cast their votes for the winner of the national popular vote UNLESS enough other states join for them to be a majority.

Right now, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey have all voted to join the pact. All will cast their ballots the traditional way for now, unless enough other states join for the pact to cover a majority of the Electoral College votes.

[Muttocracy]

8. you're right about NE and ME - here's a link with that and other goodies

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#takeall

[gateley]

13. Great resource, JIOOU -- thanks!

I didn't find anything nearly as helpful when I was looking. :hi:

[onenote]

4. about half the states have laws that purport to require electors to honor the state's popular vote

There have been occasional instances of "faithless electors" -- electors who dont' cast their vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in their state. There are laws dealing with this in half the states, but to my knowledge, no one has ever prosecuted anyone for it and I don't think the 'illegally' cast vote has been challenged since in no instance would it have changed the outcome of the election. That's not saying that it can't impact the outcome, just that it hasn't so far.

on edit: as other posters have pointed out, there are a couple of places that allocate electors; however, I didn't understand that to be your question.

[gateley]

10. As I responded to another -- we don't do anything simply and clearly, do we?

Sheesh! But I now I understand what I was confused about -- thanks!!

[NYC_SKP]

16. Are you confusing the primaries with the GE on this point?

My understanding has always been that, based on the most recent rules, all but two states are "winner take all" in the general election.

:shrug:

[gateley]

18. I didn't know enough to confuse the two -- I just didn't know how the

electoral votes worked. I understood the primaries - and know that the electoral votes come into play in the GE. Just didn't know if it was 'winner takes all' or not. That's why I asked.

[NYC_SKP]

19. I was actually asking onenote about these laws he mentioned....

....read his comment about laws on the books in half the states....I'm not sure if that's right.

I personally hate winner take all. In California, for example, 51 percent reads as 100 percent, thus disenfranchising 49% of the electorate.

Of course, this year I'm not too offended, but we've gone red in the past.

:hi:

[gateley]

20. You cite a good example of where it's not very fair --

the 51 percent reading as 100 percent.

Although I understand (sort of) the logic behind the electoral college, you're right -- it isn't really all that fair, accurate or representative.

[liberalpress]

22. Think of it this way..

Without the electoral college, candidates would campaign in CA, and the NE corridor, where most of the population lives. The rest of would be completely irrelevant.

[onenote]

21. nope -- talking about faithless electors in GE

electors who don't vote for the candidate who gets the majority of the poular vote in their state (and the state is a winner take all state).

See http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionross4.htm for more info.

[Alexander]

7. Only Nebraska and Maine can split their votes like that.

And in that case, it only happens if a candidate wins a congressional district.

Which is actually a possibility this year.

There's talk that Obama could carry Nebraska's district which contains Omaha, and he would get 1 electoral vote from Nebraska.

[gateley]

11. Interesting - thanks! nt

[RoadRage]

15. FROM NEBRASKA - GOOD NEWS!!!!!

We are only one of two states that can split our votes, however we never actually have done that. We've always gone Republican.

However, Obama campaigned here in Omaha in February, and he JUST SET UP A CAMPAIGN OFFICE HERE! In Omaha (the mayor dubbed it Obamaha in Feb.) we're the most liberal people in the state - and we're also right on the state line with Council Bluffs Iowa - who is leaning blue.

What does all of this mean? Well, if our congressional district (Omaha) were to vote for Omaha - he'd get one Electoral vote for Nebraska! McCain will most likely get the other 2 congressional districts - and the "popular vote" which accounts for the other 2 votes.. but Obama definitely has a shot at 1.

Also - this is going to force McCain to run a few ads here, and possibly spend time here.. so that's always good to take him away from other states!

[gateley]

17. That IS good news! And I love "Obamaha"! nt