On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 7:54:03 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:

> So, what are 'electoral colleges'? Are they not make up of voters?

No. It's a little complicated.

When we go to the polls to elect the president, what we are actually
voting for are members of the electoral college. These people convene,
cast ballots, and the outcome of that balloting is the next president
of the U.S.

Each state has some number of electors that corresponds to its
population. In that way, the voice of many small states can
outweigh the voice of a few big states. This is the situation
we have today.

The electors are expected to cast their ballot to match the outcome
of the election in their state. Some states require all electors
to cast their ballot for the person who got the most votes in that
state's election. Other states have their electors cast their
ballots in proportion to the all votes cast. For example, if
Candidate A gets 75% of the vote and candidate B gets 25% of the vote,
then 75% of that state's electors cast for Candidate A and 25% of
the electors cast for Candidate B.

All of this--the existence of the Electoral College, the differences
between the states in how the votes are apportioned, etc.--shows that
the United States is a federation of more-or-less sovereign states
rather than a unitary state in itself.

Wikipedia has a longer description of the Electoral College at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)>
It includes a map showing how the voice of the many less-populous
states outweighed the voice of a few large states.

A lot of people don't like the Electoral College. I think it's
valuable. Without it, we could save a lot of time by holding
elections only in New York and California, but the results would
not well represent the people elsewhere.

Cindy Hamilton