• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Please read my post before answering.

Which bit? (read initial post!)

  • 0

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Chances are pretty strong I will vote for someone other than Bush, so I picked that. Of course it will depend to some extent on who the other choices are.

I am a centrist, so the 2-party primary system works against me, the democratic candidate may be too far to the left for my liking, but I already know that Bush is WAY too far to the right.
 
Re: Re: Interesting

Upchurch said:

...
Otherwise, candidates would only campaign on the coasts and in major cities.
Click to expand...

They do that anyway. Population drives the number of electoral college votes, so the candidates go where the people are.

The charming side effect of the electoral college system is its potential to discourage the popular vote for the minority party in a state. Here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, which has gone Democrat in all recent presidential elections, it is a "waste of a vote" to vote Republican. Same is true for Democrats in conservative states. Saying that Gore won the popular vote but lost the election in 2000 is true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Gore would have won if the campaign and election had been run strictly on the popular vote. Quite possible, but not a given.
 
Wolverine said:
Allow me :) :
Click to expand...
Thanks, Wolvie.

It's only been about four hours, but it looks like if the election were held today (and only the people on this board voted), Bush wouldn't be re-elected. I guess it really isn't just world opinion after all.

Somehow, I find that a little unsettling.
 
Party designations should be removed from the ballots. Its just a way for the 2 major parties to retain power.

No I wont vote for Bush. (I didnt vote for Gore either). Even without the war, I still have issues wh the Bush administration.
 
Upchurch said:
It's only been about four hours, but it looks like if the election were held today (and only the people on this board voted), Bush wouldn't be re-elected. I guess it really isn't just world opinion after all.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. There are a disproportionate number of Libertarians on this board.
 
Nasarius said:


Maybe, maybe not. There are a disproportionate number of Libertarians on this board.
Click to expand...

Disproportionate compared to what? I mean, how do you know?

Und wieso kennst Du die Toten Hosen? :D

Zee
 
Yay! I now feel part of the JREF Forum, I have just been called a moron! :)

Well thats why I am here, to learn, and banter back and forth and read differing points of view.

On ward with my learning so I can reduce my moronic tendancies.

:D
 
The reason for the electoral college comes from the fact that we are faithful to our federal style of government. In a federal government, the states have rights as separate entities. Our House of Representatives is the People's chamber, and our Senate is the States' chamber.

Two cents from Tennessee
 
PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:
As far as I understand it Americans do not vote for their President in the sense of: mark an x beside the name of the candidate you choose for president.

If I am wrong please correct me. I am no expert on elections in th US.

It seems to me that the choice comes in the form of becoming a party member and voting for a nominee pairing of Pres and VP.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what party we belong to. We can vote for whatever candidates of whatever party we desire.

We vote for President and Vice President separately.

As for the electoral college, each state has a certain number of electoral votes assigned based on population. The more people in a state, the more electoral votes a candidate wins when he wins the majority of votes in that state.

The number of electoral votes is equal to the number of members of Congress.
 
Jedi Knight said:

Yeah, the people of his own home state probably still wouldn't have voted for him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As Bush(s) demonstrated in Florida, the vote of the people doesn't matter. :rolleyes:
 
LukeT said:

As for the electoral college, each state has a certain number of electoral votes assigned based on population. The more people in a state, the more electoral votes a candidate wins when he wins the majority of votes in that state.
Click to expand...

Not all states require that their electoral college members vote according to the popular majority of the state.
 
dsm said:


As Bush(s) demonstrated in Florida, the vote of the people doesn't matter. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It never did..the only thing that matters in presidential elections is the electoral college.

JK
 
While agreement with the major points of the platform is crucial, I necessarily vote for the person whom I feel is the most intelligent candidate.

Obviously, that ain't our man in the WH.
 
LukeT said:


It doesn't matter what party we belong to. We can vote for whatever candidates of whatever party we desire.

We vote for President and Vice President separately.

As for the electoral college, each state has a certain number of electoral votes assigned based on population. The more people in a state, the more electoral votes a candidate wins when he wins the majority of votes in that state.

The number of electoral votes is equal to the number of members of Congress.
Click to expand...

I have never voted in an election where I vote for the President and Vice President separately. I thought there was a Constitutional process that mandated they were elected together, but a cursory search didn't reveal it.

I also thought every state had one elector for every congressman and senator.

Every state has election laws to determine the way in which electors should vote.

I won't vote for Bush. I'd vote Libertarian over Bush (no offense intended to the Libertarians out there.)
 
Not all states dictate electoral votes

I thought all states did require their electors to follow the popular vote, but according to this source, 24 states do not, and the Virginia law may be advisory.

Still, in almost all elections, the principle of electors following the popular vote has been followed. More on that here.
 
Nope, not all states require the electors to vote the way they say. In recent memory (yours, not mine), the last time we had a rogue elector was in the 1976 election when one elector (I don't recall from where) cast a vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Gerald Ford. It didn't cause any change in the final outcome, but he was reprimanded by the state Republican party.

Originally, the electors had two votes to cast, one for pres and one for vp. However, electors began casting their two votes for the same person (which was totally legal). This created truly divided governments where the president and the vp were of different parties. The Twelth Amendment fixed that. Now, the electors cast one vote for a president-vp combination.

Still, we elect the electors, not the pres/vp. And not all states require electors to vote as they say they will. There are, however, checks built into the system so that the outcome is not seriously questioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom