With the recount already underway, all indications are that the U.S. presidential election will be very close and will have a particularly close outcome: it will be a razor-thin difference in certain states that tip the balance in favor of the vice president. Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump.
One of the keys to the elections is in the. complex U.S. electoral systemThis is one of the peculiarities of the system ”the electoral system”, which will be decisive in awarding victory to one of the two candidates, even if he/she has fewer votes than his/her rival.winner-takes-all‘, whereby a single vote in a particular state can end up deciding the presidency..
Citizens vote to decide which candidate their delegates will support in the Electoral College
The first thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. electoral system states that. the presidential election is conducted through electoral delegates.each state is assigned a number of electoral delegates according to its demographic weight (its census), and the citizens of each territory vote to decide which candidate their delegates will support. in the Electoral College, the body formed by all of them after the elections. This collegiate body is the responsible for formally electing the President (even if the media, with their prediction models and approximations, do so on election night itself).
In that Electoral College, which meets months after the election in a joint session on Capitol Hill. in Washington, D.C., delegates convey their state’s support for one of the candidates. It is made up of 538 delegates, so the majority is at 270.The candidate who reaches that number is designated President of the United States.
‘Winner takes all’: one vote can decide an entire state
The key to this whole system is in the rule ‘winner takes all‘, the great peculiarity of U.S. elections: unlike in Spain (where there is a proportional system), in the U.S. this system is used majority system in which, as its name suggests, ‘winner takes all’.
What does this mean? That the candidate who wins the vote in a state, even by a single vote, gets all the electoral delegates from that state. For example, if Harris beats Trump by a single vote in California, she takes all 55 electoral delegates from that state.
The winner does not have to be the candidate with the most votes.
This system seeks, in theory, to balance the demographic weight with the influence of all the States in the election of the next president. On the other hand, the system allows for situations in which the most voted candidate fails to win. the presidency because he/she does not have enough delegates in the Electoral College.
For example, suppose ‘candidate A’ wins by a single vote three states apportioning 30 electoral delegates, while ‘candidate B’ wins by millions of votes four states totaling 29 electoral delegates. Well, even if ‘candidate B’ has the support of four states and several million more voters, ‘candidate A’ would be the winner of the elections, since he/she has more electoral delegates.
This assumption has occurred several times in American history: most recently, in 2016 when. Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump.but the tycoon won 304 electoral delegates to the Democrat’s 227. Trump managed to win more states, even if they had fewer seats, even if Clinton won in the popular vote and in the most populated states.
Nebraska, Maine and Washington D.C., the exceptions.
There are only two states where this majoritarian system does not exist: Nebraska y Mainein which delegates are distributed on a proportional basis.as in the Spanish electoral system: in the last elections, for example, Nebraska apportioned its five electoral delegates, giving 4 to the Republicans and 1 to the Democrats, while Maine did the same, giving 3 to the Democrats and 1 to the Republicans.
Also an exception is the District of ColumbiaThe District of Columbia is not a state, but the U.S. capital has 3 electoral votes, as established in the U.S. Constitution.
How much is each state ‘worth’ in US elections?
The number of electoral delegates from each state, which is equal to the sum of its congressmen and senators from that state, is established on the basis of the population census of each territory in each electoral period, always adding up to a total of 538 delegates:
- California – 54 electoral votes.
- Texas – 40 electoral votes.
- Florida – 30 electoral votes.
- New York – 28 electoral votes.
- Pennsylvania – 19 electoral votes.
- Illinois – 19 electoral votes.
- Ohio – 17 electoral votes.
- Georgia – 16 electoral votes.
- North Carolina – 16 electoral votes.
- Michigan – 15 electoral votes.
- New Jersey – 14 electoral votes.
- Virginia – 13 electoral votes.
- Washington – 12 electoral votes.
- Arizona – 11 electoral votes.
- Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes.
- Indiana – 11 electoral votes.
- Tennessee – 11 electoral votes.
- Wisconsin – 10 electoral votes.
- Colorado – 10 electoral votes.
- Minnesota – 10 electoral votes.
- Maryland – 10 electoral votes.
- South Carolina – 9 electoral votes.
- Alabama – 9 electoral votes.
- Oregon – 8 electoral votes.
- Louisiana – 8 electoral votes.
- Kentucky – 8 electoral votes.
- Connecticut – 7 electoral votes.
- Oklahoma – 7 electoral votes.
- Kansas – 6 electoral votes.
- Missouri – 10 electoral votes.
- Arkansas – 6 electoral votes.
- Iowa – 6 electoral votes.
- Mississippi – 6 electoral votes.
- Nevada – 6 electoral votes.
- Utah – 6 electoral votes.
- New Mexico – 5 electoral votes.
- Nebraska – 5 electoral votes.
- Maine – 4 electoral votes.
- Montana – 4 electoral votes.
- Idaho – 4 electoral votes.
- West Virginia – 4 electoral votes.
- New Hampshire – 4 electoral votes.
- Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes.
- Hawaii – 4 electoral votes.
- Alaska -3 electoral votes.
- Wyoming – 3 electoral votes.
- North Dakota – 3 electoral votes.
- South Dakota – 3 electoral votes.
- Delaware – 3 electoral votes.
- District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes.
- Vermont – 3 electoral votes.
Critics defend the importance of the popular vote and proportionality
Although in theory the system seeks to balance the demographics and weight of the statescritics of the system winner-takes-all argue that in the end all the burden of the election falls on the ‘swing states‘Those ‘swing states’ that do not have a defined tendency and may opt for one candidate or the other. Critics argue that candidates focus on these states and neglect the vote in other territories with a more defined vote, which would discourage electoral participation.
But the great criticism is centered on the possibility that the system gives that the winner could be the candidate with fewer votes: the system makes that just one vote can define all the decision-making power of a state and, therefore, suppress any effect of millions of voters of the losing party in that state.. Faced with this distortion of representation, there are some alternative proposals, such as a proportional system or that the winner is simply whoever has the most votes in the whole country.
However, there is no expectation of changing a system that has been in place since the founding of the country.s and that, according to several authors such as Maurice Duverger, tends to encourage the dominance of the two-party system.