Wait a minute, let me get this straight! We **DONT** elect our president?!

[warcrow]

**DISCLAIMER**

Please, do not flame me for my ignorance. I'm trying to seek out the knowledge now, so comments like "where the hell have you been?" or "do you live under a rock?" are not constructive and will be ignored.


**QUESTIONS**

1) We do not elect the President with our popular vote?
2) Who elects The Electoral college?
3) There are no requirements to become a member of the Eelctoral College?
4) They're not even metnioned in the constitution, so where did they come from?

Thanks in advanced, guys!

 

[SuperTool]

Why would you ignore constructive comments?

 

[tnitsuj]

Yes we do have an electoral college, otherwise presidential candidates would only campaign in New York, California, and Texas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

 

[Orsorum]

I think he meant to be a "not" before that.

Besides, warcrow, what rock have you been under?!

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why would you ignore constructive comments?

DOH! fixed it!

 

[Tab]

Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
I think he meant to be a "not" before that.

Besides, warcrow, what rock have you been under?!

Sad Panda

 

[maddogchen]

hmmm...don't know the answers.

But I think they put in the electorate college since the beginning because they didn't trust the majority uneducated colonists. They wanted educated people to listen to what the people wanted but make what they thought were the correct vote. So they could pick another candidate and ignore the popular vote in their state. But over the years, its become tradition to vote what the popular vote in the state is, now that more and more people have become educated.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
hmmm...don't know the answers.

But I think they put in the electorate college since the beginning because they didn't trust the majority uneducated colonists. They wanted educated people to listen to what the people wanted but make what they thought were the correct vote. So they could pick another candidate and ignore the popular vote in their state. But over the years, its become tradition to vote what the popular vote in the state is, now that more and more people have become educated.

People are more educated today, thats right. So, I guess it makes more sense (still not sure I agree with the idea) back in the day, but I think its run it course, hasnt it?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

because states as well as population are factored into the electorial college.

 

[Strk]

We do elect our president, it just happens to be through a reasonably screwed up system. Let's see how well I can explain it.

Each state is given a set amount of electoral votes based on their representatives(2 senators + however many members of the House). Now, there is more to the electoral college, but this is the way it works now: the candidate who wins the state, regardless of by what percentage, receives all of the electoral votes in that state.(except for Maine and Nebraska, I believe, they break up the electoral votes by district) In order for a president to be elected, there must be a majority of electoral votes, if not, then it is chosen by the House.(also, technically, the VP is elected seperately)

So we do technically do elect our president, just not directly.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

because states as well as population are factored into the electorial college.

Yep, and since all states are required to receive at least 3 electoral votes, it is easy to understand how it occured, at least in 2000.(this was not the first time the popularly elected candidate lost) If you take a look at a map of past elections you will notice one thing: there are a few states that are essentially perma-red.(ie: they are always won by Republicans) However, some of these states only have the minimum electoral votes, which means they have quite low populations.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

Easy, let's pretend we have three states with 15 electoral votes each

Virginia: 10,000 people vote for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives ALL the electoral votes to Bush from Virginia with 15 votes.
Carolina: 10,000 people voted for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives All the electoral votes to Bush from Carolina with 15 votes.
Maryland: 19,998 people voted for Kerry, 1 person voted for Bush. That gives all the electoral votes to Kerry with 15 votes.

In the above example, Kerry won the popular votes with 39,998 votes versus Bush's 19,999 votes, but lost the election anyway because he only got 15 electoral votes versus Bush's 30.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

Why? So every state, even the less populated ones, has a voice in how the country is run.

How? It all started with the Boston Tea Party. You see, the colonialists were tired of having no say in how much they were taxed, so they revolted and won a bloody war and setup the electoral college to make sure nobody in America was ever not represented again. Then the liberal hippy teachers stopped teaching history in schools and began having kids read sob stories about Indians and evil religeous people which resulted in dumb questions being asked on Internet messageboards.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

Easy, let's pretend we have three states with 15 electoral votes each

Virginia: 10,000 people vote for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives ALL the electoral votes to Bush from Virginia with 15 votes.
Carolina: 10,000 people voted for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives All the electoral votes to Bush from Carolina with 15 votes.
Maryland: 19,998 people voted for Kerry, 1 person voted for Bush. That gives all the electoral votes to Kerry with 15 votes.

In the above example, Kerry won the popular votes with 39,998 votes versus Bush's 19,999 votes, but lost the election anyway because he only got 15 electoral votes versus Bush's 30.

Ok, Technically, I understand that. But, that doesnt make sense to me.

BTW, I found this:

"The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be state elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate."

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

Easy, let's pretend we have three states with 15 electoral votes each

Virginia: 10,000 people vote for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives ALL the electoral votes to Bush from Virginia with 15 votes.
Carolina: 10,000 people voted for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives All the electoral votes to Bush from Carolina with 15 votes.
Maryland: 19,998 people voted for Kerry, 1 person voted for Bush. That gives all the electoral votes to Kerry with 15 votes.

In the above example, Kerry won the popular votes with 39,998 votes versus Bush's 19,999 votes, but lost the election anyway because he only got 15 electoral votes versus Bush's 30.

Ok, Technically, I understand that. But, that doesnt make sense to me.

BTW, I found this:

"The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be state elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate."

The electors for each state vote however the popular election in that state goes...so this is not some secretive cult making the decisions...it's just a formality.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

Easy, let's pretend we have three states with 15 electoral votes each

Virginia: 10,000 people vote for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives ALL the electoral votes to Bush from Virginia with 15 votes.
Carolina: 10,000 people voted for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives All the electoral votes to Bush from Carolina with 15 votes.
Maryland: 19,998 people voted for Kerry, 1 person voted for Bush. That gives all the electoral votes to Kerry with 15 votes.

In the above example, Kerry won the popular votes with 39,998 votes versus Bush's 19,999 votes, but lost the election anyway because he only got 15 electoral votes versus Bush's 30.

Ok, Technically, I understand that. But, that doesnt make sense to me.

BTW, I found this:

"The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be state elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate."

The electors for each state vote however the popular election in that state goes...so this is not some secretive cult making the decisions...it's just a formality.

The interesting thing about this formality is that not all states require the delegates to vote as the popular vote goes. In theory, it is possible for a President to win IN SPITE of the fact that a given state's electorate voted otherwise.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: Tabb
Yes, I'd also like to add that a president could lose the popular vote but still win the electoral vote. How stupid is that?

Exactly! Why and how is that possible? :shocked:

Easy, let's pretend we have three states with 15 electoral votes each

Virginia: 10,000 people vote for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives ALL the electoral votes to Bush from Virginia with 15 votes.
Carolina: 10,000 people voted for Bush, 9999 person voted for Kerry. that gives All the electoral votes to Bush from Carolina with 15 votes.
Maryland: 19,998 people voted for Kerry, 1 person voted for Bush. That gives all the electoral votes to Kerry with 15 votes.

In the above example, Kerry won the popular votes with 39,998 votes versus Bush's 19,999 votes, but lost the election anyway because he only got 15 electoral votes versus Bush's 30.

Ok, Technically, I understand that. But, that doesnt make sense to me.

BTW, I found this:

"The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their state party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be state elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate."

The electors for each state vote however the popular election in that state goes...so this is not some secretive cult making the decisions...it's just a formality.

I believe there have been cases where electors voted against the popular election, but I am too lazy to search for it.

 

[Pepsei]

Also, I believe there are maybe one or two states that distributes electoral votes according to the popular votes for that state. too lazy to search for it.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

The interesting thing about this formality is that not all states require the delegates to vote as the popular vote goes. In theory, it is possible for a President to win IN SPITE of the fact that a given state's electorate voted otherwise.

yes, in 2000 one of Gore's delegates in Wash. DC withheld her vote to Gore giving him (2 of 3 votes in DC)
a total of 266 instead of 267 (imagine if that vote had matter i.e. from 269 to 270)

If the Constitution was not amended after the 2000 election then I don't think it will ever be amended to remove the electoral vote process.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
Also, I believe there are maybe one or two states that distributes electoral votes according to the popular votes for that state. too lazy to search for it.

There was a case in WA state a few decades ago, I think, but I can't find it on google.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: maddogchen
hmmm...don't know the answers.

But I think they put in the electorate college since the beginning because they didn't trust the majority uneducated colonists. They wanted educated people to listen to what the people wanted but make what they thought were the correct vote. So they could pick another candidate and ignore the popular vote in their state. But over the years, its become tradition to vote what the popular vote in the state is, now that more and more people have become educated.

People are more educated today, thats right. So, I guess it makes more sense (still not sure I agree with the idea) back in the day, but I think its run it course, hasnt it?

people aren't any more educated on everything that affects them than they were 200 years ago. they may know something in specific, but usually that has turned from some sort of artisan craft or farming 200 years ago to some sort of intellectual work today. most people know jack and squat about economics, foreign policy, etc. they get most information about that in 10 second sound bites that transmit about as much information as a braying ass. and when the republic was founded, the states could allow just educated people to vote anyway, poll tests and restrictions other than age were perfectly legal. (wouldn't mind having a poll intelligence test at all)

as for the EC not being in the constitution, i suggest you read article 2, section 1; and amendment XII

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
Also, I believe there are maybe one or two states that distributes electoral votes according to the popular votes for that state. too lazy to search for it.

maine does it this way, and maine is electorally worthless. the only time a presidential candidate goes to or cares about maine is when he visits his resort home there.

 

[Klixxer]

Ok, so the US is semi-democratic?

Not really democratic like Europe where the popular vote wins?

Maybe WE should teach YOU someting about democracy?