SLIPPERY ROCK — On Tuesday, Slippery Rock University’s political science professor Heather Rice set out to answer the question troubling many people: “Does my vote matter?”

The short answer: yes and no.

Rice explored the topic during a presentation at the university as part of the Candid and Controversial Series hosted by the Women’s Center.

Electoral college

Presidential elections use a process called the electoral college, made up of 538 electoral votes that are delegated to states according to the number of representatives in the national legislature.

Each state has two electoral votes, one for each senator, and the same number of votes as representatives in the House, meaning the minimum number of votes for a state is three.

In Pennsylvania, there are 20 electoral votes.

“It’s only those 538 people whose vote actually matters,” Rice said. “You as the individual voter, you are not actually voting for either or any of the candidates when you go to place a vote on Nov. 8 ... What you are actually saying is that ‘I want the members of the electoral college from my state to vote for (that candidate).”

Whichever candidate receives the most votes in a state wins all of the electoral votes for that state. To win the presidency, a candidate must win 270 votes.

This “winner-takes-all” concept leads presidential candidates to virtually ignore guaranteed states and focus only on “battleground,” or “swing,” states, Rice said.

California, with 55 electoral votes, will vote Democratic, so little campaigning happens there.

“The likelihood of a Republican winning California is very, very little. It’s nonexistent,” she said. “States like California get ignored in this process.”

Rice presented 2015 data from the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, identifying seven swing states: Colorado, Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

Rice called the electoral votes in those seven states “truly a toss-up.”

Pennsylvania, while not a “safe” state for either Democrats or Republicans, tends to lean Democratic. Other sources, consider Pennsylvania a swing state, but recent polls have shown Hillary Clinton leading by about six points, Rice said.

So when does your vote matter?

Rice said votes are not likely to matter if a state is dominated by one party.

“If you’re not living in a battleground state, your vote for the presidency doesn’t really matter,” she said. “The likelihood that your single vote could tip the outcome of the election (is) very small, not likely.”

But a person’s vote does matter the most is in local and state elections.

“Whenever you’re one out of maybe 300 voters, your individual vote can tip the outcome,” she said. “It holds a lot more weight than whenever you’re voting as one of 200 million people voting for the presidency.”

Since Pennsylvania may by considered a battleground state, voting here could matter this election.

“Turnout is everything (in Pennsylvania),” she said. “If turnout is good, it tends to favor the Democrats.”

Far from perfect

Rice’s talk also addressed that the electoral college is far from a perfect system.

It is possible for the person who wins the electoral vote to have lost the popular vote, Rice said. This has happened three times in history, including most recently in 2000 when George W. Bush beat Al Gore.

The electoral college also makes it possible for no candidate to win the 270 electoral votes needed, but this has never happened.

In the event that it would, the 12th Amendment dictates the House of Representatives will pick the president from the three candidates with the most electoral votes, each state having one vote.

Other common criticisms are that it is an antiquated system, unfair for the “winner-takes-all” process and cements a two-party system.

Third party issue

Rice also addressed the issue of third parties in the country, admitting it is virtually impossible for a third party to get off the ground.

“We have a system that reinforces just two parties ... the cards are stacked against third parties,” she said, saying more parties would lead to more competitive and potentially better outcomes for voters.

Fixing the system?

But then, how does the country improve the broken system?

One idea often discussed is using the popular vote, but Rice stressed that this would change politicians’ strategies for the worse.

Just how candidates ignore “safe” states now, they would ignore most of the country, campaigning only in highly populated areas like Los Angeles and New York City, she said.

Many other nations follow a proportional representation system, Rice said. Then, the amount of electoral votes would match the percentage of the popular vote. This system would also allow for the development of third parties, according to Rice.

Another idea that Rice called “the most logical reform” would be to follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, the only two states that split electoral votes.

There, the number of electoral votes is split by the congressional districts. Whatever the popular vote is, that’s what the district’s electoral vote is. For the extra two votes that are from the Senate representation, the winner of the state takes those two additional votes, Rice said.

“We might end up with a more representative outcome, and we also might allow for more voters to feel like they are included in the process,” Rice said.

However, this process could be impacted by gerrymandering, a process that manipulate district lines.

“The district lines for each of the congressional districts are drawn by state legislatures, and they can be manipulated,” Rice said.

Rice used Pennsylvania as an example for how it works. The state has slightly more Democrats registered to vote than Republicans and has one Senator from each party. Yet, out of the state’s 18 congressional districts, 13 are Republican-controlled. Only five are Democratic.

So why does the electoral college remain? “Because this system is written in the Constitution. We revere the Constitution,” according to Rice. “It’s tradition, this is the way we’ve always done things.”