American Electoral College

 

How can an individual win presidential election in USA without winning popular vote. Explain with example.

An individual can win a U.S. presidential election without winning the national popular vote due to the Electoral College system.

The Role of the Electoral College

The U.S. President is not elected by a direct national popular vote but by the Electoral College.¹ Here's how it allows for a popular vote loser to win the presidency:

1. Electors per State: Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to its total number of Representatives in the House plus its two Senators.² This system gives smaller population states a slightly disproportionate voice compared to their population size.³ The total number of electors nationwide is 538, and a candidate needs an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.⁴

2. Winner-Take-All System: In 48 out of 50 states (and Washington, D.C.), the candidate who wins the most popular votes in that state receives all of that state's electoral votes.⁵ This is known as the "winner-take-all" system (Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions, using a proportional system based on congressional districts).⁶

3. Strategic Concentration of Votes: A candidate can win the presidency by securing narrow popular vote victories in a sufficient number of states to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold, even if their opponent wins much larger majorities in a smaller number of highly populated states. This results in the winning candidate having a higher total in the Electoral College but a lower total in the national popular vote.

---

Example: The 2016 Presidential Election

The 2016 election is a clear example of this outcome:

Candidate	National Popular Vote	Electoral Votes	Outcome
Donald Trump (Republican)	62.98 million	304	Won the Presidency
Hillary Clinton (Democrat)	65.85 million	227	Lost the Presidency
Popular Vote Difference	Clinton led by million votes	N/A	N/A

• How it happened: Hillary Clinton won the overall national popular vote by a significant margin.⁷ However, Donald Trump won the state-level popular vote in enough key swing states (such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin) to secure the majority of those states' electoral votes under the winner-take-all system. The relatively small popular vote margins in those states were enough to award him all of their electoral votes, pushing his total Electoral College count to 304, well over the 270 needed to win, despite losing the nationwide vote count.

This phenomenon has occurred five times in U.S. history: 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.⁸

How does Marxian view of state differ from that of John Locke

 Marx's view of the state differs fundamentally from John Locke's, diverging on the origin, purpose, nature, and fate of political power. Locke sees the state as a neutral arbiter created by consent to protect natural rights, while Marx views it as an instrument of class oppression designed to maintain the power of the ruling class Marx view of state Instrument of class domination: The state is a tool of the dominant economic class (the bourgeoisie in capitalism) to protect its property and privileges and to suppress the working class (the proletariat).

Not a neutral entity: The state is not a neutral body that serves all citizens equally; rather, its structure and functions are determined by the underlying economic system and class relations. Origin in class society: The state did not always exist. It arose when society became divided into classes with conflicting economic interests, which required a formal apparatus to manage and control the oppressed classes. Maintenance of social order: The state's role is to maintain social order and stability in a way that preserves the existing economic hierarchy and prevents the working class from challenging the ruling class's power. And Johan Locke state of viewNatural rights: Individuals are born with inherent, inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property that predate any government. Natural law: This is a universal law that all individuals can access through reason and that dictates that no one should harm another in their life, health, liberty, or possessions. Freedom and equality: People are free and equal in the state of nature, with no one being naturally subordinate to another. Absence of government: There is no common, established authority to act as a judge or enforce the law of nature, so each individual is their own judge and has the right to punish violations of the law.

******

John Locke sees the state as a neutral entity that protects the rights and properties of individuals in a social contract setup. He emphasizes individual rights, like life, liberty, and property, and thinks the state's main job is to safeguard these. Marx, on the other hand, views the state as an instrument of class rule. According to Marx, the state serves the interests of the ruling class (like the bourgeoisie in a capitalist setup) to maintain their power over the working class (proletariat). Marx thinks the state isn't neutral but rather a tool for class domination. He predicts that in a communist society, with the abolition of classes, the state would eventually "wither away" as there's no need for it to enforce class rule.

Quizes and Tests

Semester I

Quiz 2 -  Click to Start

Semester V

Quiz 1 -  Click to Start

Quiz 2 -  Click to Start

MARXIAN APPROACH TO POLITICAL ANALYSIS

The Marxian approach to political analysis is fundamentally different from the

liberal political analysis – both ‘traditional’ or ‘modern’. Karl Marx approaches the

question of politics from the point of view of social change which is dialectical and

historical. The theory of dialectical materialism and its application in history i.e., historical

materialism are the two important tools in Marxian methodology. In this respect, it should

be remembered that Marxist approach means taking note of not only of the writings of

Marx and Engels but also those of Lenin, Mao and others.

Marx says that society does not consist of individuals but represents the sum total of

interrelations within these individuals exist. To him all societies in history have been class

societies. The contending classes from free man and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and

serf, guild master and journeyman to bourgeoisie and proletariat in the epoch of capitalism.

All class societies are characterized by domination and conflict which are based on specific

concrete features of their mode of production. Class domination has been a historical

process signifying a constant attempt on the part of the dominant classes to maintain and

extend their domination of the society.

The important feature of Marxian approach is that here State being the central theme

of politics is conceived as an inevitable consequence of class contradictions. Thus State is

an instrument of exploitation and oppression by one class by another. Marxists argue that

the class character of the state cannot come to an end until the emergence of the classless

society where there is no state.. Thus the Marxian perspective of politics can be understood

only with reference to the nature of prevailing societal conflict and domination. Here

politics becomes integrally connected with the basic economic structure finding its

manifestation in the forces and relations of production. In the real world economic and

political forces and factors are constantly interacting. According to Marx politics,

economics, culture and ideology are all inseparably intertwined. It is hard to disentangle

one from the other. The ‘forces of production’ at the particular stage of historical

development are matched by definite ‘relations of production’ that characterize the society.

The relations of production taken together constitute the economic foundation (base) of the

society. The legal and political institutions (super structure) stand on this economic

 Historical Approach

Historical approach denote the process of arriving at the laws governing politics

through an analysis of historical events, as exemplified by the theories propounded by

Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel and Karl Marx. It also stands for an attempt at

understanding political process through a historical account of political thought of yester

years. The best example for historical approach in political science is George H. Sabine’s

‘A History of Political Theory’. Leading examples of the questions raised by political

philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Jeremy

Bentham, J.S. Mill, Hegel or Marx are what ideals are sought to be realized through the

state; what is the meaning of freedom and equality; what are the grounds and limits of

political obligation etc. Karl Popper has described this approach as ‘historicism’. Popper

has criticized historicism – especially Marxism – because it insists on discovering what is

inevitable, and then advocates ‘totalitarian’ methods for its realization. Further critics of

historical approach point out that it is not possible to understand ideas of the past ages in

terms of the contemporary ideas and concepts. Moreover, ideas of the past are hardly any

guide for resolving the crises of the present day world which are beyond comprehension of

the past thinkers. This criticism to historical approach encouraged the development of the

Behavioural Approach. However, the recent revival of interest in the rich heritage of

political thought for evolving guiding principles for our own age emphasizes the importance

of historical approach in political science.

Socialism