僅憑22%的選票就能當選總統！：英語精讀講義

In a fair democracy, everyone's vote should count equally.

在一個公平的民主國家，每個人的選票份量都應該相等。

But the method that the United States uses to elect its president,

但是美國用來選舉總統的方法，

called the Electoral College, violates this principle

也就是所謂的「選舉人團」制度，違反了這項原則，

by making sure that some people's votes are more equal than others. 慣用語

因為它讓某些人的選票比其他人的更有份量。

The Electoral College is, essentially, 文化背景

選舉人團制度，本質上來說，

the 538 votes that determine who wins the presidency.

就是決定誰能贏得總統大選的538張選票。

If these votes were split evenly across the population, 片語搭配

如果這些選票在人口中平均分配，

every 574,000 people would be represented by one vote.

每57萬4千人就能有一張代表選票。

But that's not what happens because the Electoral College doesn't give votes to people,

但事實並非如此，因為選舉人團並不把選票分給個人，

only states,

而是分給各州，

which has some unfair consequences.

這就帶來了一些不公平的後果。

For example,

例如，

there are 11.5 million people in Ohio.

俄亥俄州有1150萬人口。

So, to fairly represent them,

為了公平地代表他們，

it should get 20 electoral votes.

它應該獲得20張選舉人票。

But the Electoral College doesn't give Ohio 20 votes,

但選舉人團並沒有給俄亥俄州20票，

it only gets 18,

它只得到了18票，

two less than it should.

比應得的少了2票。

Where do those other votes go?

那其他的票去哪了？

To states like Rhode Island.

去了像羅德島這樣的州。

Plucky Rhode Island has 1.1 million people in it,

勇敢的羅德島州有110萬人口，

so it should have about two votes,

所以它應該有大概兩張選票，

but instead it gets four.

但它卻得到了四張。

Those extra two votes that should be representing Ohioans

那多出來的、本應代表俄亥俄州人的兩票

go to representing Rhode Islanders instead.

反而去代表了羅德島州人。

Why?

為什麼呢？

Because, according to the rules of the Electoral College,

因為根據選舉人團的規則，

every state,

每個州，

no matter how few people live there, 文法

無論居住的人口有多稀少，

gets three votes to start with 片語搭配

一開始都會獲得三張選票，

before the rest are distributed according to population. 片語搭配

然後剩下的選票再根據人口來分配。

Because of this rule,

因為這條規則，

there are a lot of states with a few people that should only have one or two votes for president,

有許多人口較少的州本來只應該有一兩張總統選舉票，

but instead get three or four.

但卻得到了三張或四張。

So, Georgians, Virginians, Michiganders,

所以，喬治亞州、維吉尼亞州、密西根州，

and Jerseyites are each missing one vote.

還有新澤西州的人們，各少了一張選票。

Pennsylvanians, North Carolinians, Ohioans,

賓夕法尼亞州、北卡羅來納州、俄亥俄州，

and Hoosiers are missing two, 文化背景

以及印第安納州的人們少了兩張，

Floridians are missing four,

佛羅里達州的人少了四張，

New Yorkers five,

紐約州少了五張，

Texans six,

德克薩斯州少了六張，

and Californians are 10 votes short of what they should get. 片語搭配

而加利福尼亞州的人比應得的票數少了整整十張。

Because of this vote redistribution,

因為這種選票重新分配的機制，

the Electoral College essentially pretends that fewer people live where they do

選舉人團實質上是在假裝人少的地方有更多人，

and more people live where they don't.

而人多的地方只有更少人。

An American who lives in one of these states

生活在這些州的美國人

has their vote for president count for less 用詞

他們的總統選票份量

than an American who lives in one of these states.

就比生活在那些州的美國人更輕。

In some cases,

在某些情況下，

the Electoral College bends the results just a little,

選舉人團只讓結果發生了微小的偏轉，

but if you live in a particularly large or small state,

但如果你住在特別大或特別小的州，

it bends them a lot.

它就會讓結果發生極大的偏轉。

One Vermonter's vote,

一名佛蒙特州人的選票，

according to the Electoral College,

按照選舉人團的規定，

is worth three Texans' votes, 片語搭配

相當於三名德州人的選票，

and one Wyomingite's vote is worth four Californians.

而一名懷俄明州人的選票則相當於四名加州人的選票。

Now, woah,

現在，哇，

hold on there, 語氣意圖

等一下，

son,

孩子，

you might be saying to yourself right now.

你現在可能正心裡嘀咕。

You're missing the whole point of the Electoral College. 片語搭配

你完全沒搞懂選舉人團的意義。

It's to protect the small states from the big states.

它是為了保護小州免受大州欺壓的。

Give the small states more voting power

賦予小州更多的投票權，

and the presidential candidates will have to pay them more attention in an election. 片語搭配

總統候選人在選舉中就不得不給予它們更多的關注。

If that's the goal of the Electoral College,

如果這就是選舉人團的目標，

it's failing spectacularly. 片語搭配

那它徹頭徹尾地失敗了。

Here's a graph showing the number of visits

這張圖顯示了在上次大選的最後兩個月中，

the presidential candidates paid to each of the states

總統候選人

in the last two months of the previous election.

造訪各個州的次數。

If it looks like there are a few states missing, 表達脈絡

如果看起來好像少了幾個州，

you're right.

你沒看錯。

Only 18 of the 50 states received even a single visit from a candidate,

50個州裡只有18個州有候選人去過哪怕一次，

and just two of those states,

而在這其中僅僅只有兩個州，

Maine and New Hampshire,

緬因州和新罕布夏州，

have very small populations.

人口非常少。

The area of the country with the most small states

這個國家小州最多的地區

is conspicuously missing. 片語搭配

竟然明顯地消失在圖上了。

The Electoral College doesn't make candidates care about small states.

選舉人團並沒有讓候選人去關心小州。

But, interestingly,

但有趣的是，

the biggest states,

那些最大的州，

California, Texas, and New York,

加州、德州和紐約州，

are missing as well.

同樣也不在圖上。

So,

所以，

what's going on?

這是怎麼回事？

Looking closer,

湊近一看，

just four states,

僅僅四個州，

Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia,

俄亥俄州、佛羅里達州、賓夕法尼亞州和維吉尼亞州，

received a majority of the candidates' attention during the election.

就吸引了候選人在大選期間絕大部分的注意力。

And,

而且，

if you follow the money, 慣用語

如果你順著資金流向去看，

it's the same story.

結果也是一樣。

Why do candidates spend so much money and time in so few states?

為什麼候選人把這麼多金錢和時間花在這麼少的州？

Because the way the Electoral College works

因為選舉人團的運作方式

forces them to do so.

迫使他們只能這麼做。

The elections are winner-take-all. 用詞

選舉是「贏者全拿」的模式。

As long as a candidate gets just over 50% of the popular vote in a state, 文法

只要一位候選人在一個州贏得超過50%的普選票，

he wins 100% of that state's electoral votes.

他就能贏走該州100%的選舉人票。

That means winning by millions of citizens' votes 文法

這意味著以領先數百萬張公民選票獲勝

is no better than winning by a single vote.

並不比僅僅以一票之差獲勝更好。

So,

所以，

candidates are safe to ignore states where they poll with big margins. 片語搭配

候選人可以放心地忽視那些他們民調優勢極大的州。

Instead,

相反地，

the Electoral College makes candidates intensely interested in the needs of just a few states with close races

選舉人團使得候選人極度關注僅有的幾個選情膠著的州的需求，

to the detriment of almost all Americans, 片語搭配

卻犧牲了幾乎所有美國人的利益，

which is why it should be abolished.

這也就是為什麼它應該被廢除的原因。

But, 表達脈絡

但是，

wait,

等等，

you might say,

你可能會說，

wouldn't abolishing the Electoral College 文法

廢除選舉人團

and voting directly for president

直接投票選總統，

cause candidates to spend all their time in big cities?

難道不會導致候選人把所有時間都花在大城市嗎？

That wouldn't be fair to most Americans either.

這對大多數美國人來說也不公平啊。

This sounds like a reasonable fear, 表達脈絡

這聽起來似乎是個合理的擔憂，

but it ignores the mathematical reality of population distribution.

但它忽略了人口分布的數學現實。

There are 309 million people in the United States,

美國有3.09億人口，

only 8 million of which live in New York, 文法

其中只有800萬人生活在紐約，

the largest city by far. 片語搭配

這已經是迄今最大的城市了。

That's 2.6% of the total population.

那僅僅占總人口的2.6%。

But,

但是，

after New York,

在紐約之後，

the size of cities drops fast.

城市規模下降得很快。

LA has 3.8 million people and Chicago has 2.7.

洛杉磯有380萬人，芝加哥有270萬人。

But,

不過，

you can't even make it to the 10th biggest city, 片語動詞

你甚至數不到第十大城市，

San Jose,

聖荷西，

before you're under a million people.

人口就已經跌破百萬了。

These top 10 cities added together are only 7.9% of the popular vote,

這前十大城市加起來僅占普選票的7.9%，

hardly enough to win an election. 文法

根本不足以贏得選舉。

And even winning the next 90 biggest cities in the United States all the way down to Spokane, 片語搭配

哪怕再贏下美國接下來90個最大的城市，一直數到斯波坎，

is still not yet 20% of the total population.

仍然不到總人口的20%。

So,

所以，

unless there's a city with a few hundred million people hiding somewhere in America that's been left out of the census, 講解

除非美國某地隱藏著一座擁有幾億人口、且被人口普查漏掉的城市，

the idea that a candidate can just spend their campaign jetting between New York,

否則以為候選人可以僅僅在紐約、

LA, and Chicago

洛杉磯和芝加哥之間飛來飛去競選

while ignoring everyone else

卻忽視其他人

and still become president is mathematically ludicrous.

還能當上總統的想法，在數學上是極其荒謬的。

Want to see the real way to unfairly win?

想看看不公平獲勝的真正手段嗎？

How you can become president with only 22% of the popular vote

如何今天就利用選舉人團制度，

by taking advantage of the Electoral College today. 片語搭配

憑藉僅僅22%的普選票就當上總統。

Don't believe that's possible in a democracy?

不相信這在民主國家是可能發生的事？

Just watch.

看好了。

Here's the action plan.

這是行動計畫。

Win the votes of the people who count the most 慣用語

贏得選票份量最重的人的票，

and ignore the people who count the least.

並無視選票份量最輕的人。

Start with Wyoming,

從懷俄明州開始，

the state where 0.18% of Americans live,

這個州住著0.18%的美國人，

but who get 0.56% of the Electoral College votes for president.

卻獲得了0.56%的總統選舉人票。

And,

而且，

because it's a winner-take-all system,

由於這是贏者全拿的系統，

you don't need all of them to vote for you,

你不需要他們所有人投票給你，

just half plus one, 用詞

只需要一半加一票，

or 0.09%.

即0.09%就夠了。

Next up is the District of Columbia, 表達脈絡

接下來是哥倫比亞特區，

where winning 0.1% of the population

在這裡贏得0.1%的人口，

gets you an additional 0.56% of the Electoral College.

就能再獲得0.56%的選舉人票。

Then,

然後，

add in wins in Vermont and North Dakota and Alaska.

加上在佛蒙特州、北達科他州和阿拉斯加州的勝利。

Notice how the votes you're getting to win the presidency

注意，你為贏得總統大選所獲得的選票，

go up much faster than the percent of the population who voted for you 文法

其增長速度遠快於投票給你的民眾的比例，

because of the Electoral College's rules.

這都是拜選舉人團的規則所賜。

Next is South Dakota, then Delaware, Montana,

接下來是南達科他州，然後是德拉瓦州、蒙大拿州，

Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii,

羅德島州、新罕布夏州、緬因州、夏威夷州，

Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico,

愛達荷州、內布拉斯加州、西維吉尼亞州、新墨西哥州，

Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas,

內華達州、猶他州、堪薩斯州、阿肯色州，

Mississippi, Iowa, Connecticut, Oklahoma,

密西西比州、愛荷華州、康乃狄克州、奧克拉荷馬州，

Oregon, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina,

俄勒岡州、肯塔基州、路易斯安那州、南卡羅來納州，

Alabama, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin,

阿拉巴馬州、科羅拉多州、明尼蘇達州、威斯康辛州，

Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona,

馬里蘭州、密蘇里州、田納西州、亞利桑那州，

Indiana, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey.

印第安納州、麻薩諸塞州、維吉尼亞州，最後是新澤西州。

Congratulations.

恭喜你。

By taking advantage of the unfair rules and winning states, 表達脈絡

透過利用這種不公平的規則並贏下各州，

not people,

而不是贏得人民，

you've won a majority in the Electoral College

你已經贏得了選舉人團的多數票，

even though 78% of the population voted against you. 文法

即使78%的人口投票反對你。

This is not democracy. 表達脈絡

這不是民主。

This is indefensible.

這是站不住腳的。

While this particular scenario is unlikely, 文法

儘管這種特定情況不太可能發生，

if you have a voting system that allows losers to win,

但如果你的投票系統允許輸家獲勝，

you shouldn't be surprised when they do.

那當這種事真的發生時你也不該感到驚訝。

Not once, 表達脈絡

這不是一次，

not twice,

也不是兩次，

but thrice in American history,

而是在美國歷史上發生過三次，

the candidate with the most votes from the people actually lost

得到最多民眾選票的候選人卻實際敗選了，

because of the Electoral College.

這全怪選舉人團。

Three errors in 55-plus elections

55屆以上的選舉中出現了三次錯誤，

is a failure rate of 5%. 片語搭配

這就是5%的失敗率。

Would anyone tolerate a sport where by a quirk of the rules, 講解

有人會容忍一種因為規則漏洞，

there was a 5% chance that the loser would win?

而導致輸家有5%的機會獲勝的運動嗎？

Not likely.

不太可能。

Given how much more important electing the president of the United States is, 文法

考慮到選舉美國總統要重要得多，

that's a rather dangerously high percentage of the time to get it wrong. 片語搭配

出現錯誤的比例高得相當危險。

If we abolish the Electoral College and simply let citizens vote for the president directly,

如果我們廢除選舉人團，僅僅讓公民直接投票選總統，

all of these problems will go away 片語動詞

所有這些問題都會迎刃而解，

and everyone's vote will be equal.

每個人的選票都將是平等的。