On July 29th, the U.S. Embassy hosted a large delegation of interns from the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

Over lunch we engaged in a number of great conversations, chief among them regarding the 2008 presidential elections.

I was very pleased and surprised by their extensive knowledge of the current dynamics of the presidential race, as well as their ability to reference and draw parallels from past U.S. elections.

One question they had, as have many Europeans I have met since my arrival in London, was why the United States has a system whereby a presidential candidate could potentially win a majority of the votes nationwide and still lose the election.

Such was the case in the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, as well as during the presidential elections of 1876 and 1888.

The reason why such an event can occur, albeit very rarely, is that U.S. presidents are not elected by popular vote; they are elected by the members of the Electoral College.

When Americans cast their votes, as millions will this November, they are only competing against voters within their own states to determine which candidate will receive their state’s portion of the 538 “electors” nationwide.

The presidential candidate who receives the largest number of votes in each state wins all of the allocated electors who are apportioned to it in the Electoral College.

This is the reason why many U.S. presidential candidates only campaign in “swing states,” where voters are heavily split between support for the two candidates and both stand a good chance of victory.

A large majority of votes for a presidential candidate in a state makes no difference than if that candidate were to receive a small majority of votes.

In addition to this winner-take-all process, the manner in which electors are apportioned among the states is another factor that may cause a discrepancy between the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Rather than allocating electors to each state based upon their population count, they are allocated in accordance with the total number of Senators and Representatives serving from that state in the United States Congress.

So, while California has the largest population (over 36.5 million residents) and Wyoming has the smallest in the union (roughly half a million residents), the number of electors allocated between them is 55 and 3, respectively.

This example shows that while California has a population 73 times larger than Wyoming, the Golden State is only allocated 18 times the number of presidential electors.

The Electoral College is a process that dates back to America’s founding, rooted in the country’s emphasis on federalism and serving as an equalizer among states in choosing the next Commander-and-Chief.

On Saturday, July 26th Senator Barack Obama will arrive in London, his final stop on a tour of the Middle East and Europe since securing the Democratic Party’s nomination for President.

Prior to his arrival in the UK, the Senator also made stops in Paris and Berlin to meet with their countries’ leaders, as well as to deliver a speech in Germany regarding the future of U.S.-European relations.

Obama is expected to meet with Prime Minister Brown while in London to discuss such matters as climate change, terrorism, trade and the economy.

In mid-March, after securing the Republican Party’s nomination for President, Senator John McCain also made a similar trip to Europe.

During his tour, which also included the Middle East, he met with the leaders of the UK and France to discuss many of these same subjects.

Since my arrival to London in early June, I have had a number of British citizens, as well as Spanish, French and Germans express their concern to me that America no longer seems to care much about Europe, both in terms of what happens on the continent and European opinion on crucial matters.

While in each case I attempted to convince them otherwise, there can be no stronger evidence to the contrary than the recent visits of both Senator McCain and Senator Obama.

Both McCain and Obama, regardless of their vast political differences, made their visit to European capitals a priority because Americans do care about our allies across the Atlantic.

Both men also know that in order to convince the American public that they can be trusted with the future of American foreign policy, they must have a good showing with European leaders and the public.

My name is Andrew Blasi, the 2008 Pamela Harriman Foreign Service Fellow at the United States Embassy in London, serving in the Ambassador’s Office. I am a current public policy and finance major at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. I hope that through this blog, “Politics & the U.S. Presidential Elections 2008,” we will be able to explore some of the major themes in this year’s historic election.

Living in South Florida during the vote recount of the presidential election in 2000 sparked my interest in this subject. Following that event, I launched a grassroots campaign in my hometown that registered over 1,000 new youth voters. Since then, I worked for a number of organizations in Washington, DC, to improve my understanding of the legislative and diplomatic process.

I hope to use what I have learned through these experiences to offer an explanation why many things happen the way they do in America’s electoral process. I encourage you to contact me with any questions or opinions you have along the way.

U.S. Embassy Panel Discussion, “Politics and Pundits: The Influence of the Media on Elections and Democracy”

On July 16, 2008, the Embassy held a panel on the subject of media influence in the U.S. electoral process. Four well-known pundits, from both the U.S. and the UK, presented their insights and opinions to a large audience which also included thousands from around the world via live webcast.

While the partisan polarity and wit of the panelists made for great entertainment, this comical panel discussion truly demonstrated the strong influence media can have on the electoral process. To watch the panel discussion or read more about it, visit here: http://www.usembassy.org.uk/webtv/pundits2.html

Many in the U.S. refer to the media as the fourth branch of government. Serving as a diverse institution in its own right, the media can check the power that politicians extend through their influence over what the general public sees. As in most nations that enjoy free press, the influence extended by news outlets on television, radio, and the Internet in America is substantial and growing.

This year’s long election campaign has been no exception, with the media playing a central role in the manner that both Democrats and Republicans choose to present themselves and their positions to the American public. Unlike in past generations, the American electoral process now solidly includes who can play the public relations game best and win over the support of major media outlets. This will continue to be the case for the U.S. presidential campaigns until November, as well as for all foreseeable elections in the years ahead.