This isn't really a politcal thread. I actually am confused by how it works. Electoral votes what does that mean. How can you project a winner at the exit polls when votes haven't been tallied? I'm a Canadian watching this stuff online at cnn.com. Can somebody break it down for me?
The people can't be trusted to make the right choise so we have the electoral college. In WA The majority gets all our EC votes. they project a winner by using statistics on exit polls. We don't use the popular vote to pick the president so that argument needs go away or we need to change the system. I think they want to set up an EC for Iraq becuase there at too many Shiwhatevers. Hey it's good enough for us... or is it.
Basically every state has a "value." That value is the number of Senators (2) plus US Rep's (I think dependent on percentage of total population vs all other states - thus Alaska is big physically, but not in population so they don't have as many). When the ballots are counted whomever gets the most votes in that state will "win that state" and whatever it's "value" is, as represented by the number of Electors. This map: http://www.spacerad.com/electoral/ shows the number currently per state. I live in WA, which has 11 electoral votes. So whomever "wins WA" gets 11 votes towards the presidency. Of course this means that the actual elected president could lose the popular vote (total for each candidate added up, irregardless of the whole electoral process). Here is some more about that: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege_2.htm Hope that helps!
alright... so how does it really work. Who are the electoral College? How does one become one? Maybe if I explain the Canadain System it will help you explain the US, In Canada voting works like this. Picture the major teams. In Canada that would be Liberal,(Democrat) Conservative (Not really republican but close enough) New Democrats (Socialists) and that'll about do it. So These Parties or Teams have members in all the different ridings. A person votes for the team member they want (Known as members of Parliment) The Party with the most Members of Parliment to be elected is the party in power and the leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister (your President) Now. Talk to me like I'm a 4 year old and break it down like that . Please.
Here's some more info: http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_44/b3705061.htm I forgot to mention it takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency and there are 538. Being an even number, there may be a way that it could go 269-269. I've also heard that the Electors aren't necessarily "required" to vote with the popular vote. They could go against it, which would be really interesting. I don't know if that has ever happened.
Each state has some electoral votes. When you vote, you're voting for the popular vote. 99.9% of the time, the winner of a popular vote in a state gets that states electoral votes. Person with the most electoral votes wins.
If there was no electoral college California,Texas,Florida and New York would decide all modern Presidential Elections. The founding fathers were smart men and realized the big states would get all the attention of the candidates. Whereas the small states would be ignored.
Steve, It is called a "Faithless" Elector. We actually have had three people do this. Once in the Kennedy Admin, once in the Nixon Admin and once in 2K. I teach US history to 8th graders and I just explained the Electoral College and "faithless electors" on Monday.
Scott, So it is true... everything we need to know - we learned in the 8th grade! :laugh: I did just hear about Nebraska and Maine doing this part different than the other 48 states. Interesting I know this considering how much I "hate politics!" ...but I always vote :TU:
Steve, You got it! 8th grade is the year. Some people think I am nuts, but my wife and I teach in the same district and in the middle school. Nothing beets hormones with feet! Scott
Scott! Please, as an 8th grade teacher, you should use the proper word... "beets?"... ??? :spank: Frank
Basically we vote and one of our guys from our state decides, even if everyone votes Reublican, if the guy likes he can vote Democrat for part of the state, or vise versa. So basically "your vote doesnt count" idea makes for the really low voter outcome.
I think that's only happened three times in the past, and in some states it's actually illegal for the elector to vote against party lines.
Let's use ND as an example. We have 2 senators of course, and only 1 member of the House of Representatives. That means the state of ND has 3 electoral votes to cast in the election. ND is predominantly Republican when it comes to the presidential election. Bush has the vote in ND this time around, which means the state's Republican party chooses 3 party members to cast the state's 3 votes in the Electoral College. This means of course there is little chance they would cast any of the 3 votes for Kerry. However, they CAN do just that if they chose to. When one of the candidates has received 270 electoral votes, he is declared the winner with a majority of the electoral votes.
Interesting thread... Not unlike the 2000 election there was a highly controversial election back in 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes (northern Republican) thought he had lost the election (back when you only needed 185 to be elected president) and went to bed defeated. The next morning and the months following this election it was discovered that Hayes indeed had lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote 185 to his opponent, Samuel Tilden's 184. This spurred a huge controversy at a time when the nation was still healing from the Civil War. The winner was not actually decided until January 1877, when a bipartisan committee was brought together to sort the mess out. Hayes was given the presidency, but in exchange he had to remove federal troops from the South (due to reconstruction), and if memory serves he had to appoint a Democratic vice-president - although I am not certain about this :Smarty: -Chris
