The United States is the only example of a country in the world which uses an electoral college to indirectly elect the executive, so every other democracy is one without an electoral college.
You may be referring to the oath of office. But the electoral college is what officially elects the president. A presidential candidate may win the popular vote, but without enough electoral votes, he (or one day, she) will not be officially elected.
people
You can win without getting the majority of the popular vote.
people
Yes
3
Yes they can. It depends on how the Electoral College chooses to vote. They do not have to vote according to the popular vote in each state. There is a difference between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote.
There are two sides to this question. First, the electoral college allows presidential candidates to focus on certain states that they need to swing. We if did not have the electoral college, presidential candidates would have to go to the areas where there party is more dense to get the votes they need, which would make things complicated. The other side to it is that a president might be selected without winning the popular vote. This unraveled before our own eyes in 2000 when even though Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college and hence won the presidency. Hope this helped you to take a side.
There are two sides to this question. First, the electoral college allows presidential candidates to focus on certain states that they need to swing. We if did not have the electoral college, presidential candidates would have to go to the areas where there party is more dense to get the votes they need, which would make things complicated. The other side to it is that a president might be selected without winning the popular vote. This unraveled before our own eyes in 2000 when even though Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college and hence won the presidency. Hope this helped you to take a side.
The electoral college was set up to provide a balance between population-based and state-based voting. Remember the United State was founded as a Union of States. Without a electoral system the elections would have and still would be easily decided by the most populous states. The electoral system was a compromise. The above answer presupposes that a simple popular vote would be inadequate to elect the president. The above answer assumes that population-based voting would somehow result it unfair elections. REMEMBER, the number of electoral college representatives per state increases as a state's population increases. Thus, the most populous states often DO decide presidential elections. And there is nothing wrong with that. REMEMBER, the United States is a democratic republic. The electoral college was not created as a compromise in the same way that Congress (population-based) and the Senate (state-based) were created by compromise to compliment each other. The very fact that members of the electoral college are not statutorily required to vote for the candidate that took their state is strong evidence that the electoral college exists to prevent the election of a populist president. The electoral college was developed because the founders of the nation did not trust the people fully to directly elect their leaders. Some people (for example, Alexander Hamilton) did not have much faith in the common citizen. The overall opinion was that national leaders should be elected by educated, respected people who were selected by each state.
It ensures that small staes have a voice in choosing the president. I know this because I just did it, in Apex.
The College of Electors choosing the president can be compared to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.