I have a basic idea of how it works. I understand that it is supposed to make every state's votes relevant in an election, correct?
The thing that doesn't seem to work for me is what if you live in a state that always votes Republican or Democrat. Say for instance California. I believe that is a Democratic state. If you are a Republican living in California it seems to me that your vote doesn't do shit. Only if you live in a "swing" state would your vote really matter.
Maybe somebody more imformed on this process than me can shed some light. Not trying to start a debate here. Just curious.
The idea is to make sure that the President is elected by a "broad base" of the electorate. By using the electoral college, you for the candidates to visit a wide scope and breadth of peoples to get the highest number of votes possible in those areas.
Without this college, candidates could just visit their respective bases and build a platform that only appeals to a specific electorate, however dispersed that electorate is.
Either way, if you are in the wrong column, you're disenfranchised. At least, with the electoral college, you can have some hope that those "swing states" will help swing your candidate to a victory.
Being left-leaning and in Texas, I'm heavily outnumbered.
Kal.
'04 G35 Coupe 6MT, Black/Black, Premium Package, Aero Package w/Spoiler, Infinity Basslink, Clear Bra
Well my first point is many states have laws which split their votes between the canidates, basically making it decided by a popular vote in the state.
Second, I live in Texas as well, and yes, it will probably go to Bush this year. I don't think Kerry has ever been to Texas. But, in 2008, Texas becomes up for grabs. It's not historically a Republican state, so I personally can't wait to see what happens in '08.
I'm no polyscience major or anything but the way I look at it I'm not sure if your vote would even matter in some states, probably the mentality of some voters (or I should say non voters)as well. The way it is if one party has more of their voters in that particular state and for the sake of argument they all vote for their party then that state will go to that canidate. It doesn't really seem fair. For example I think this happened against Bush and Gore. Bush won the electoral votes but Gore won the popular votes. I actually wish there was a better system.
Anyway, all you number/fact finding debating members out there, does anyone know what the total amount of registered voters there are? How many Republican, Democrat, Independant? Does any one have it broken down by state as well? That would be interesting to see.
'04 Infiniti G35/coupe/6MT/Ivory Pearl/Willow Leather/Premium Pkg/Aero Kit/XM Radio
Even when the election IS all said and done, do you think this country will just go back to normal? hell no...the visciousness of this election and the division of the country is going to make the aftermath of the 2000 elections look like a party.
Even when the election IS all said and done, do you think this country will just go back to normal? hell no...the visciousness of this election and the division of the country is going to make the aftermath of the 2000 elections look like a party.
And you thought the 2000 presidential election was wild.
How about this for 2004: George Bush is re-elected president, and your new vice president is ... John Edwards.
Yes, it could happen.
If the right states favor Republican incumbents Bush and Dick Cheney on Election Day and the rest go for Democrats John Kerry and Edwards, the result could be a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College, which chooses the president and vice president.
Under the Constitution, the new House of Representatives would then elect the president by majority vote, with each state's House delegation getting one vote.
The winner almost surely would be Bush, since the Republican Party is expected to control most delegations in the House, where it now has a 30-20 edge.
The Senate would elect the vice president by majority vote, choosing Cheney or Edwards, with each senator getting one vote.
And if Democrats gain two Senate seats Nov. 2, the body could pick Edwards, the senator and trial lawyer from Raleigh, N.C.
A dozen or more scenarios could produce a draw in the Electoral College, said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.
"Look, 269 to 269 is far from absurd," he said. "There could be a Bush/Edwards administration. It would be fascinating. I'd pay to have that happen."
An electoral tie, while possible, isn't likely. The odds are against it are about 99-to-1, Sabato said.
But the odds also were against the 2000 election being decided by 537 votes in Florida, he said.
And applying the tiebreaker rules of the 12th Amendment could make the five weeks of uncertainty after that 2000 election seem quaint.
There's an even wilder possibility: acting President Edwards.
The House delegations of at least 26 states would have to agree on a president. If they couldn't by Jan. 20, the vice president -- Cheney or Edwards -- would take over as acting president until the House made a decision. (Editor's Note: The original version of this story gave an incorrect date.)
An Electoral College tie has occurred before.
In 1800, the House took 36 votes to settle a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr by making Jefferson president.
Burr became vice president -- only to ruin his political career by killing foe Alexander Hamilton in a pistol duel in 1804.
Politics today is tame by comparison but still often brutal.
And you can bet that an accidental Bush/Edwards victory would quickly turn the vice presidency from powerful to puny, Sabato said.
It also would test the limits of bipartisan cooperation.
Not to mention national barbecue policy, which could depend on who's quicker on the drawl.
2004 | 6MTs | Diamond Graphite/Graphite
Upstate NY
The only thing I'm betting on is a recount and not knowing who the prez is for for a couple weeks like last time. From here on out we can count on the loser suing the winner
Each state is a nation unto itself. It has its own constitution, voting system, tax system, schools, law enforcement, judicial, and legislative branch.
The states have banded together and created a Federal government to oversee their common interest (defense, trade, basic rights).
The Electoral College is the representatives of the state voting for the president of the Federal government.
In other words, the president is elected by the STATES, not the people - thats the way the system was designed. The system was designed to be able to PREVENT the popular vote from electing a president.
I did study political science, and received a bachelor's degree in it. The electoral college was part of a compromise package needed to get the US Constitution ratified. Whenever you have majority rule, the minorities always worry about being ignored. In this case, the minority was the small (not heavily populated) states. 220 years ago, the states' had very different needs and goals. The economy was not tied together like the global economy we have today. People in the small states wanted to be sure that they would not simply be outvoted. Their greatest fear was that all the people in New York would vote for the New York candidate for President and all the people in Virginia would vote for the Virginian. This would create a New York-Virginia President/VP combo. Nowadays people don't just vote for the home-state boy as can be witnessed by Al Gore's losing Tennessee in 2000, but back then it was a legitimate concern.
So the electoral college system is there to give small states more power. When electing a President, each state has a number of electors who will cast votes for the President. The number of electors is equal to the number of representatives in the House + 2 for the number of senators in the state. Since every state has 2 senators, small states with few representatives in the house receive more "power" from the senators since they get these 2 electors regardless of population. Let me explain in numbers...
California, the most populous state, has 55 electoral votes (53 reps + 2 senators). Wyoming, the least populous state, has 3 electoral votes (1 rep + 2 senators). California's population is (according to the 2000 census) 33,871,648 people. Wyoming's population is (according to the 2000 census) 493,782.
What you can deduce from these population and electoral vote numbers is how many citizens it takes to "create" one electoral vote in the Presidential election. In this case, California takes 33,871,648 and divides it by 55 to get 615,848. That means every 615,848 people in California represents one electoral vote. In Wyoming you take 493,782 and divide that by 3 to get 164,594. As you can see it takes far fewer people in Wyoming to generate an electoral vote.
What this does is it guarantees that although small states may be outvoted in Congress because they lack the numbers to push bills through, the small states will have more power than the big states when it comes to electing the President. Since the President is the highest office in the country, the small states were satisfied that this would be a way for them to strike back should the big states ignore the needs of the minority.
Sorry for being long-winded, but that's the historical explanation for the electoral college system. Just thought you should know.
Ryno, it may surprise you that not too long ago California was extremely Republican. If you discount Gray Davis, do a search and see how many Democrat governors there have been in the 20th century. You don't even need all five fingers on one hand to count them And of those four Democrats, only one won a second term in office.
Aside from that, California's 55 electoral votes aren't very strong. But that has to do with being in the Pacific time zone. I could get into the whole fiasco of moving the primary date if you'd like. California will be moving its primary back to June if you didn't know. We tried to move the primary up so that we'd be a bigger player in selecting party candidates, but the other states just moved their primaries to be ahead of our March date. Going last when the race is already decided wastes our votes. That's what happened before, and the other states made sure it was what happened after we moved the date up.
Dholly, if a tie does occur, I worry about a repeat of the 1876 election where Rutherford B. Hayes bribed electors to vote for him. Hayes actually lost the electoral college race, but won the Presidency by bribing the southern electors. His bribe? The end to reconstruction and a withdrawl of Union troops from the South. Could one of the parties stage such a coup in this day and age? Doubtful, but who knows...
If by many you mean two states Maine, and Nebraska currently have this system. Colorado is voting on it this Tuesday. The interesting thing is that if the ballot measure passes in Colorado, which appears doubtful, the new system will be used for this Presidential election. I'm sure they'll have a ball trying to figure it all out if they pass the measure.
In America this idea generally doesn't work. Colorado has 9 electoral votes. Elections here are not slaughters with one candidate winning 70% and the other winning 25%. Elections of 55% beating 40% are HUGE victories. In this case, Colorado's 9 votes would be split 5-4. And this is what will happen pretty much all the time. What candidate would waste his/her time campaigning for 1 measely electoral vote since you're pretty much guaranteed four votes anyway?
Maine's system is better since they award the electors based on district. They actually count the votes in each district and that district's decision becomes the vote of that district's elector.
Well my first point is many states have laws which split their votes between the canidates, basically making it decided by a popular vote in the state.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Electoral College
And of those four Democrats, only one won a second term in office.
