#238569 - 21/10/2004 19:40
Really Wrong
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/disgruntled_electorI'm against Bush, but this is really wrong. This just seems like an abuse of the system. I'd like to hear a justification for why this aspect of the electoral college even exists? Why do we need the proxy layer of an actual person doing the voting?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238570 - 21/10/2004 19:49
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I'm not necessarily defending it, but our government is rife with checks and balances, and even if your Civics teacher didn't talk about it, many of them are intended to check the stupidity of the populace. The fact that this is a republic and not a democracy is one of them. Many senators often vote ways in Congress that they know their consituents would not like, but do it anyway. This is just another example of that. Of course, I'm not sure what's there to check the potential stupidity of the elector.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238571 - 21/10/2004 21:02
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: wfaulk]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 31/05/2002
Posts: 352
Loc: santa cruz,ca
|
found a link to this from the above mentioned page... http://tinyurl.com/4efvzseems it might be one possible answer.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238572 - 21/10/2004 21:40
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: lastdan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7868
|
Quote:
In 1992, 40 percent of Coloradans voted for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton. Republican George H.W. Bush won 36 percent of the state's vote, and Reform Party candidate Ross Perot pulled in 23 percent. Mr. Clinton, however, won all of the state's electorals.
Political newspaper columnist Susan Barnes-Gelt opposes the amendment saying it will empower third parties to ill effect. Under the proposed amendment, Mr. Perot would have won one electoral vote.
"You want Ross Perot negotiating with whoever the president of the United States is going to be, with a place at the table?" she asks.
Yes, yes I do. I want this country to break away from the two party rut it is in, and I want more parties to have a chance. 23% isn't a small amount to ignore.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238573 - 21/10/2004 22:13
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mschrag]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
I'm against Bush, but this is really wrong.
Hmm, sounds like a good thing to me. Its exactly the sort of screw ball action that could get the electoral college system thrown out.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238574 - 21/10/2004 22:43
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/09/2000
Posts: 3608
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
He just wants some attention what's wrong with that 
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238575 - 21/10/2004 22:55
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mcomb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Um, it's happened before, as recently as the 2000 elections. We didn't really hear about it then. I can't imagine we'll hear about it now unless it affects the election's outcome.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238576 - 22/10/2004 02:10
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: lastdan]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
For those who really want to delve into the debate, Google: electoral college>New York Times; their recent Op-Ed suggesting that the electoral college be abolished stirred up a hornets' nest, pro and con....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238577 - 22/10/2004 02:52
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
Um, it's happened before, as recently as the 2000 elections. We didn't really hear about it then. I can't imagine we'll hear about it now unless it affects the election's outcome.
Agreed, but as far as I know its never effected the outcome of an election. If this year's is a close as it is supposed to be then it could.
It would be wonderfully ironic if Bush won the popular vote and then lost the electoral after everything that happened in 2000.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238578 - 22/10/2004 11:02
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mcomb]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
I'd hate to see Bush win the popular vote, period, although I have to agree that I would savour the irony.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#238579 - 22/10/2004 13:56
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1522
Loc: Arizona
|
Isn't it winner take all in the electoral college anyway? So even if this guy doesn't vote, whoever gets the most votes from that state, gets all of them (meaning all the votes, even those against or abstained).
It doesn't sound like one person not voting would change anything, or do I have something horribly wrong in my thinking?
- Tim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238580 - 22/10/2004 14:29
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: Tim]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Each state decides how to allocate their electoral votes. Most states are winner take all. Maine, for instance, is not, but instead allocates some of theirs by congressional district winners.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238581 - 22/10/2004 14:32
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: Tim]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
I believe it works as follows: Each party has a number of electorates (is this the right term?) equal to the total # of electoral votes for the state. The winner take all means that whichever party gets the majority, their chosen electorates are allowed to cast their vote. Now 99% of the time this means that the given party wins that state. However, it's not a guarantee that the electorates will vote with their party. So you could imagine that a state wins, then all the electoral college members vote with the other party and basically reverse the decision. I believe this is possible.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238582 - 22/10/2004 14:46
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mschrag]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238583 - 22/10/2004 15:36
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1522
Loc: Arizona
|
OK, another question then . How does the party divide up the electoral votes to determine which member chooses which votes go where? Now that even I'm confused at what I'm trying to say, let me try to reword it. If that guy's party won the state, how does the electoral college or party decide who is responsible for each vote? Couldn't his party just not give him a vote since he already stated it wouldn't be used? If each party picks who will use the votes if they win, why is this even an issue? Can anybody tell how much I paid attention during those classes in school?  Thanks for the info. - Tim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238584 - 22/10/2004 16:12
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: Tim]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
They are preselected. So they can't just swap him out for someone else. He's assigned to be an electoral voter for this election, so if their candidate wins and he decides to vote the other way or to not vote at all, they lose that electoral vote.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238585 - 22/10/2004 16:16
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mschrag]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1522
Loc: Arizona
|
That makes sense (well, as much as it could be expected to ). Thanks for the explanations. - Tim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238587 - 22/10/2004 17:11
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mcomb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Agreed, but as far as I know its never effected the outcome of an election.
Well, the thing you have to realize is that electors cast their votes well after the popular elections, on the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December. By then, everyone knows who's won; it just hasn't been made official yet, which is what the electors do. So chances are that this particular elector won't vote in such a way as to cause a change in the result, as he'll know beforehand if that will be the case (making a reasonable assumption that none of the other electors will also be "faithless"). Of course, I could be wrong.
Edited by wfaulk (22/10/2004 18:04)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238588 - 22/10/2004 17:43
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: mcomb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Um, it's happened before, as recently as the 2000 elections. We didn't really hear about it then. I can't imagine we'll hear about it now unless it affects the election's outcome.
Agreed, but as far as I know its never effected the outcome of an election. If this year's is a close as it is supposed to be then it could.
Bitt didn't bitt you, so I will. Affected. Election outcomes have been successfully effected every time so far, though last time it seemed like we might not get one, at least for a while.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238589 - 22/10/2004 17:57
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Since tonyc claims my point is nebulous, the outcome was "effected", meaning the election was over and decided successfully. The result would have been "affected" had enough electoral voters defected from their party (one, not enough to matter, defected to vote for John Anderson in 1980).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238590 - 22/10/2004 19:08
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: loren]
|
veteran
Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1522
Loc: Arizona
|
From that link, all but two of the states (NE and ME) are winner take all. By winner take all, do they mean that the winner of the popular vote gets to place all of their electors in (but their vote goes for whoever they want), or does it mean that all of the electoral votes go to the majority winner of that electoral college (so all the votes are for the same candidate, even if one or more weren't originally)?
Sheesh... politics is confusing.
- Tim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238591 - 22/10/2004 19:38
Re: Really Wrong
[Re: Tim]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
The former (victor places his/her electors) not the latter.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index