October 31, 2024
There are only 5 days left until the US election. Today's article will systematically analyze the US election system and help you understand how the US president is born.
The U.S. presidential election system is different from that of most countries. The United States elects its president through a unique electoral college system.
(1) Electoral College System
The president of the United States is not elected directly. Instead, the people vote to decide which president the state will support. Then the state's "electoral college" will collectively vote for the corresponding president. There is a so-called winner-takes-all system. Then, whichever candidate from the two parties gets the most "electoral college" votes will become the president of the United States.
Thus, there is a possibility that a presidential candidate could have more popular votes but receive fewer electoral votes, resulting in a loss in the presidential election.
This situation has occurred five times in U.S. history, the most recent being in 2016, when Trump had a vote share of 45.9% and Hillary had 48%. Although Trump lost the popular vote, he won 304 electoral votes, whereas Hillary only received 227 electoral votes, resulting in Trump being elected president with a significant lead in electoral votes.
This is related to the U.S. 'winner-takes-all' state election system.
The U.S. is a federal system with significant state power, so the U.S. president is actually elected by the state's electors.
In the 50 states of the U.S., each state has a varying number of electoral votes.
The total number of electoral votes for a state equals the number of senators from that state plus the number of representatives from that state.
Each state has a fixed number of two senators, while the number of representatives from a state is determined by the state's population.
Image
With 50 states, the total number of senators is 100, plus 435 representatives, resulting in 535 electoral votes.
Then, in 1961, the U.S. passed an amendment granting Washington D.C. three electors.
Therefore, the total number of electoral votes in the U.S. is currently 538.
Among the U.S. states, California has the most electoral votes, previously having 55 electoral votes, but this year California has 54 electoral votes, still the highest because California has the largest population.
The number of representatives from each state is determined by population.
The state with the second most electoral votes is Texas.
California is a stronghold for the Democratic Party, while Texas is a stronghold for the Republican Party.
California can be said to be the cornerstone for the Democratic Party.
In past U.S. elections, the Democratic Party has always relied on California to gain an advantage in the popular vote.
For example, in the 2016 U.S. election, Trump lost to Hillary by 2.87 million votes in the nationwide popular vote.
However, in California alone, Trump lost to Hillary by over 4 million votes.
That is to say, if we exclude California, Trump had more popular votes combined in other states than Hillary.
This also indicates that Trump's victory in the 2016 U.S. election was not solely due to the winner-takes-all rule of the Electoral College.
The Democratic Party's advantage in the popular vote is largely due to California, because the support rate for the Democratic Party in California is much higher than that for the Republican Party, and California has the largest population in the U.S.
Another major feature of U.S. elections is the winner-takes-all.
(2) Winner-takes-all
Each state's electoral votes are fixed as 'electoral college' votes. In the U.S. election, the public votes for candidates from both parties, and each state separately counts the vote ratios for both parties; the candidate with the higher vote ratio will receive all the electoral votes from that state.
For example, if a state has 19 electoral votes and Trump has a vote share of 51% while Harris has 49%, then all 19 electoral votes will go to Trump rather than being divided according to the vote shares.
This is the winner-takes-all rule of the U.S. Electoral College.
Most states in the U.S. implement this winner-takes-all rule, with only Nebraska and Maine not adopting this rule.
In Nebraska and Maine, some electoral votes are allocated by district, with these two states having five and four electoral votes, respectively.
For example, Nebraska is a deep red state inclined towards the Republican Party.
However, four years ago, Biden received one electoral vote in Omaha, the largest city in that state. According to the winner-takes-all rule, all five electoral votes from that state should have gone to Trump.
Thus, this year, Trump and his allies have been lobbying Nebraska to adopt the winner-takes-all rule.
However, on September 23, Nebraska state legislator Mike McDonnell announced that he would not support changing the counting rules, citing that it was too close to the voting day.
Originally, the Nebraska state legislature had 49 members, with Republicans holding exactly 33 seats, reaching the two-thirds threshold, meaning if all Republican members in Nebraska agreed to change the counting rules, it could be passed.
However, if even one Republican congressman opposes, it will fail.
McDonnell is the Republican congressman who opposed this, as he was originally a Democrat but switched to the Republican Party this year due to his opposition to abortion, so his decision is not surprising.
The winner-takes-all rule of the U.S. Electoral College is not actually mandatory. Only a few states have penalties for 'faithless electors' who do not vote according to the voters' results.
Although nominally, the state’s electoral votes should all go to the candidate who wins in that state, even if that 'elector' has a candidate they prefer more.
But in U.S. history, there has also been a precedent of 'faithless electors,' where electors voted for candidates who did not win in their state.
From 1796 to 2016, there have been a total of 180 'faithless electors' in U.S. presidential elections.
In the 2016 election, a rare occurrence of 10 'faithless electors' happened.
Thus, before the 2020 election, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electors do not have the right to be 'faithless.'
The U.S. Supreme Court claims that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit state governments from limiting electors' freedom of choice when voting. State governments can inform electors that 'they have no reason to overturn the votes of millions of citizens.'
This means that state governments have the authority to declare 'faithless electors' votes invalid.
In fact, one can find that this 'Electoral College' voting system is quite awkward.
Since electors do not have the right to freely choose their votes, why set up 'electors'? The U.S. election could simply have each state directly allocate all its electoral votes to the state's winner based on the vote results.
But the U.S. is not like that now; it still has to go through a formal process. In mid-December, the 538 electors in the U.S. will vote to select presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
Then, on January 6, Congress counts the electoral votes and announces the final election results.
It can be seen that this process is very formalized.
This actually reflects a serious problem that has always existed in the U.S.
(3) Unable to reform
Many people do not understand that the U.S. is a country with a strong religious color.
More than 200 years ago, the United States was founded by a group of American Puritans.
Puritans believe that God has a covenant with them and chooses them to lead the rest of the countries on Earth.
Building the City on a Hill is viewed by these Protestants as a manifestation of this covenant; these American founding fathers who ventured to North America believed that America is the City on a Hill bestowed upon the Puritans by God.
Thus, American Protestants regard American hegemony as proof of God’s existence, or in other words, they are eager to promote American hegemony to prove that their faith is pious; they believe that only when the apocalypse comes can they, the devout believers, attain redemption.
Therefore, once American hegemony begins to waver, it will drive these American Protestants to go to great lengths to maintain American hegemony, motivated both by interests and by religion, making American Protestants even more passionate.
This includes the separation of powers system established by the founding fathers of the United States, as well as this electoral system, both of which are regarded by American Protestants as gifts from God, sacred and unchangeable.
Therefore, regarding the American democratic system, even though both parties know that there are many flaws, no one can change it, and no one dares to change it.
This represents a serious problem in the U.S.: a lack of motivation for self-reform.
So, when the Democratic Party held the so-called democratic conference earlier, although they often mentioned that there are problems with American democracy, and they know there are issues, no one proposed a solution.
This is like the elephant in the room; everyone knows there is a problem, but no one can solve it.
In fact, many of the systems from over 200 years ago in the U.S. have long since fallen behind the changes of the times.
At the beginning of the U.S. founding, there was only a narrow strip of territory on the East Coast, and over 200 years ago, information was not fluid, lacking the foundation for a popular vote.
At that time, Europe generally adopted the model where the public elected representatives, and representatives elected the president.
However, the U.S. cannot adopt this election model because when the United States was founded, the separation of powers was regarded as a belief, and the three branches of government were strictly designed.
This determines that the U.S. president cannot be elected by congressional members.
Congress represents legislative power, while the president represents executive power.
If Congress were to elect the president, it would mean the president's power comes from Congress, which would mean legislative power supersedes executive power, violating the principle of separation of powers in the U.S.
Thus, the Electoral College system came into being.
However, times have changed, and in an era of highly developed information, the U.S. Electoral College system appears somewhat distorted, and the winner-takes-all rule further amplifies the violence of the majority against the minority.
But the reason the U.S. still insists on this seemingly distorted system is that on the surface, there is a reluctance to change the founding system of the United States, but fundamentally, it is because this Electoral College system is very suitable for the two-party monopolization of American politics, and further, it facilitates the capital factions behind the U.S. to control America.
Thus, the U.S. system is superficially sanctified and biblical, becoming unshakeable.
In the 2000 U.S. election, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush in the electoral vote, ultimately making George W. Bush the president.
Then, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin submitted a proposal to Congress aimed at abolishing the Electoral College system and achieving a nationwide popular vote, which naturally failed, and the U.S. has not abolished the Electoral College to this day.
Historically, the Electoral College system has been more favorable to the Republican Party.
In 2000 and 2016, Republican candidates lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College.
This is because, with the Democratic Party vigorously promoting immigration and securing immigrant votes, over time, the number of immigrants in the U.S. will only increase, and the Democratic Party's advantage, which receives the majority of immigrant support, will also grow.
Under these conditions, if a nationwide popular vote were held, the Republican Party could be said to have no chance of winning.
In fact, the Democratic Party has hardly lost in the nationwide popular vote in recent decades.
Even if the Democratic Party loses, it usually only loses electoral votes, but generally wins the popular vote.
Therefore, the Republican Party cannot allow the abolition of the Electoral College system, as that is the only possibility for the Republican Party to win amid the immigration wave.
Therefore, although the Electoral College system seems somewhat outdated and rigid, it is necessary for the Republican Party, and for the capital factions behind the U.S., maintaining the two-party competition on the surface is also necessary.
However, the division between the two parties in the U.S. is becoming increasingly severe, and the struggle is becoming more intense and increasingly unscrupulous. This makes it more difficult for various capital factions in the U.S. to maintain a state of conflict without breaking.
In fact, it can be observed that many capitalists in the U.S. are increasingly engaging in public disputes, which is not a good thing for the U.S.
Additionally, the internal divisions in the U.S. are also reflected in the increasing stability of each party's base states.
(4) Key swing states
Since the two parties in the U.S. have completely opposing views on key issues such as immigration, abortion, gun control, and LGBTQ rights, the American public has also formed a stark divide.
The Republican Party uses red as its emblematic color, so the states that form the Republican Party's base are called deep red states.
The Democratic Party uses blue as its emblematic color, so the states that form the Democratic Party's base are called deep blue states.
Under the winner-takes-all rule, the voting results in deep red and deep blue states are essentially predictable.
For instance, California has 22.17 million registered voters, of which Democratic voters account for 10.24 million, or 46%;
However, Republican voters only accounted for 5.48 million, or 24.73%;
Independent voters number 4.85 million, accounting for 21.88%;
Thus, California is classified as a deep blue state, a stronghold for the Democratic Party. Due to the Democratic Party's significant lead in California, the 54 electoral votes from California will undoubtedly go to the Democratic Party.
Currently, the 50 states in the U.S. are basically divided into deep blue and deep red camps, but there are still seven swing states where the support rates of the two parties do not differ significantly, which means that in swing states, even if one party's final vote share is only 0.1% higher than the other's, they can still receive all of that state’s electoral votes under the winner-takes-all rule.
This creates a peculiar scenario where out of 160 million registered voters, the ultimate decision on the U.S. election result rests with the moderate voters in these seven swing states.
Analysis indicates that the number of moderate voters in these seven swing states is only about 150,000, and these 150,000 will determine the outcome of this U.S. election.
This is also why Musk previously distributed money to voters in the seven swing states and randomly selected one voter from those who signed the petition each day to win $1 million.
The aim is to increase Republican voter turnout while also appealing to moderate voters.
The U.S. Electoral College + winner-takes-all rule indeed makes moderates more important, and there will exist a crucial minority that sways the U.S. election.
(5) Future direction
Currently, there are a total of 538 electoral votes in the U.S.
Two presidential candidates can become president by obtaining more than half of the votes, that is, obtaining 270 votes.
If both presidential candidates happen to receive half the votes, each getting 269, then Congress will elect the president and vice president.
Among them, the House of Representatives is responsible for electing the president, and the Senate is responsible for electing the vice president.
In U.S. history, there have only been two instances where the president was elected by the House of Representatives, in 1800 and 1824.
In theory, under these circumstances, there is a possibility that the president and vice president come from different parties, which is an extreme case of a divided government.
Of course, the probability of this possibility occurring is extremely low.
Because the U.S. Electoral College has a special winner-takes-all system, it is extremely difficult for both sides to have equal votes.
However, some American election analysts have calculated a possibility where both parties win in their respective base states, and if such a situation occurs in the seven swing states, there is a possibility of a tie.
This means that Harris won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which are three swing states.
And Trump won the other four swing states, namely Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina, known as the 'Sunshine Belt.'
In this case, if Harris secures the crucial vote from Nebraska's district just like Biden did four years ago.
In that case, Harris would receive 270 votes, winning the U.S. election by the narrowest of margins.
If Harris does not secure that vote in Nebraska, it would lead to a tie situation with both Harris and Trump at 269 votes.
Of course, the current election situation in the seven major swing states remains very tight, but there are already signs that all seven swing states are turning red, meaning Trump has higher support; however, his lead in the five major swing states has not exceeded 1%, and both parties' situations remain very tight, with a considerable degree of uncertainty about the outcome.
Regarding the U.S. presidential election, I hope to see Trump win, as this would significantly stimulate the cryptocurrency market and the U.S. stock market, maintaining a dovish economic policy and ushering in a bull market. At the same time, it would end the war in the Middle East and stabilize the global situation. This is exactly what I hope to see, and I wish Trump victory in the election.