Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Robert Jan
New member
Please explain it to me
What EXACTLY is the electoral college system?
- Thread starter Robert Jan
- Start date
HS Lifter
New member
Here you go, you big "pimp". http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
supersizeme
New member
MissJanet79
New member
Sssh!! He's not from the US... he's not supposed to know the secret!!
LOL
LOL
Robert Jan
New member
How the Electoral College Works
The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:
Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions
traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.
Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine of information, maps, and statistics.
Yadda yadda.
So, theoretically, 100% of the general population could vote for candidate A and the EC could still make candidate B president?
I realise this is not something they will ever do because things will explode and stuff but they could?
The current workings of the Electoral College are the result of both design and experience. As it now operates:
Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).
The political parties (or independent candidates) in each State submit to the State's chief election official a list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the State's electoral vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their State party conventions or through appointment by their State party leaders while third parties and independent candidates merely designate theirs.
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government are prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
After their caucuses and primaries, the major parties nominate their candidates for president and vice president in their national conventions
traditionally held in the summer preceding the election. (Third parties and independent candidates follow different procedures according to the individual State laws). The names of the duly nominated candidates are then officially submitted to each State's chief election official so that they might appear on the general election ballot.
On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
On the Monday following the second Wednesday of December (as established in federal law) each State's Electors meet in their respective State capitals and cast their electoral votes-one for president and one for vice president.
In order to prevent Electors from voting only for "favorite sons" of their home State, at least one of their votes must be for a person from outside their State (though this is seldom a problem since the parties have consistently nominated presidential and vice presidential candidates from different States).
The electoral votes are then sealed and transmitted from each State to the President of the Senate who, on the following January 6, opens and reads them before both houses of the Congress.
The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.
In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.
At noon on January 20, the duly elected president and vice president are sworn into office.
Occasionally questions arise about what would happen if the pesidential or vice presidential candidate died at some point in this process.For answers to these, as well as to a number of other "what if" questions, readers are advised to consult a small volume entitled After the People Vote: Steps in Choosing the President edited by Walter Berns and published in 1983 by the American Enterprise Institute. Similarly, further details on the history and current functioning of the Electoral College are available in the second edition of Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, a real goldmine of information, maps, and statistics.
Yadda yadda.
So, theoretically, 100% of the general population could vote for candidate A and the EC could still make candidate B president?
I realise this is not something they will ever do because things will explode and stuff but they could?
Robert Jan
New member
TQpew said:
I understand. But add this to the presence of the two party system... it's a pretty damn indirect democracy. I'm aware of the ignorance of the general population but isn't this kind of out there?
Are senators chosen entirely by the popular vote without a buffer?
Robert Jan
New member
Aren't Americans too mistrusting of authority to accept the EC system?
I don't know anything about the history and if they ever took any obvious undemocratic decisions.
I don't know anything about the history and if they ever took any obvious undemocratic decisions.
The electoral college system was a compromise.Robert Jan said:
Some of our founding fatheres wanted a direct vote.
Some wanted the president appointed by the senate.
Hence the electoral college as a compromise measure, and like all such compromises its a bad idea.
1. We should have a vote by simple majority as do all the states.
2. We should also have a formula for representation of minority parties to allow x number of seats in the congress and senate based on vote percentages.
Robert,
It serves a greater purpsoe than that as well.
It also helps make certain that lower population states (comprising the vats majority of the country geographically) are paid attention to in national elections. Other wise a candidate could basically ignore the interests of most of middle America and largely concentrate his efforts on the coasts
It serves a greater purpsoe than that as well.
It also helps make certain that lower population states (comprising the vats majority of the country geographically) are paid attention to in national elections. Other wise a candidate could basically ignore the interests of most of middle America and largely concentrate his efforts on the coasts
Robert Jan
New member
JerseyArt said:
I don't really see the problem with this. Isn't it about people and not about land?
Robert,
It's also about protecting the interests of miniorities, even simply geographic ones.
Direct democracy was never the intent of the founders. We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. True democracies are inherently flawed and unstable. I have no desire to live in one.
Important decisions should take time and effort, and not simply a good ad campaign to garner 50% + 1 vote
It's also about protecting the interests of miniorities, even simply geographic ones.
Direct democracy was never the intent of the founders. We aren't a democracy, we are a republic. True democracies are inherently flawed and unstable. I have no desire to live in one.
Important decisions should take time and effort, and not simply a good ad campaign to garner 50% + 1 vote
Robert Jan
New member
There's two sides to this for sure. I just never really realised it was so indirect.
Would you agree that with a direct democracy in place the USA would be more to the left on the political spectrum than it is now?
Would you agree that with a direct democracy in place the USA would be more to the left on the political spectrum than it is now?
Robert Jan
New member
so who is the sheep?
Have no idea. I think the leanings of any country change periodically according to circumstances.
What you have to understand is despite popular myth, the country is not broken up along economic lines. 1% of the country is considered wealthy, yet 50+ routinely vote republican.
What you have to understand is despite popular myth, the country is not broken up along economic lines. 1% of the country is considered wealthy, yet 50+ routinely vote republican.
Robert Jan
New member
I know very well that it's not only rich people who vote right wing.
In fact the opposite may apply... What are the poorest states and what are they voting? Aren't they pretty republican?
In fact the opposite may apply... What are the poorest states and what are they voting? Aren't they pretty republican?
What I mean to say Robert is that an assumption that a more direct vote on issues would by definition equal a more leftist government is not necessarily correct. In many respects it might be otherwise.
Issues like abortion could decidely turn one a one vote per issue basis. Many social programs, the majority of which most voters dont appreicate, could also fall by the wayside.
Issues like abortion could decidely turn one a one vote per issue basis. Many social programs, the majority of which most voters dont appreicate, could also fall by the wayside.
Robert Jan
New member
I know you can't be sure i'm just speculating. I never said, "by definition"
Robert Jan
New member
Thing is there is very little moving around possible. The differences are so small...
Kerry and Bush have so much in common for instance, despite their campaigning in which they both deny such a thing strongly
Kerry and Bush have so much in common for instance, despite their campaigning in which they both deny such a thing strongly
A republic does force the candidates into more centrist positions. The "extremes" are not represented well by either party on a national scale, precisely because the amount of votes garnered by endorsing them are far fewer than the number lost by mainstream voters.
Frankly, I don't see a need for a strong communist or nazi party in this country.
Fringe parties, and issue driven parties, are not in the best interest of a soundly governed nation. With them the most ridiculous platforms are introduced and seriously considered under the auspices of forming a voting majority
Frankly, I don't see a need for a strong communist or nazi party in this country.
Fringe parties, and issue driven parties, are not in the best interest of a soundly governed nation. With them the most ridiculous platforms are introduced and seriously considered under the auspices of forming a voting majority
Robert Jan
New member
That's exactly what I didn't say, Poink
Robert Jan
New member
JerseyArt said:A republic does force the candidates into more centrist positions. The "extremes" are not represented well by either party on a national scale, precisely because the amount of votes garnered by endorsing them are far fewer than the number lost by mainstream voters.
Frankly, I don't see a need for a strong communist or nazi party in this country.
We have direct democracy in Holland and we had an inspiring and refreshing, but rather incoherent, unorganised and inpractical party (LPF) do very well some years ago. They got a large number of seats in parliament, their leader, who was very much the party itself, was assassinated and the beheaded party emberassed itself so much it's now only about one fourth or so of its initial size.
We have an electable communist party in Holland. They float around the marker for a single seat in our parliament. I don't think they've made it in a while. We do have a Socialist Party that's basically always the leader of the dissidents. I think they make about 6% of votes or so. They are truely very left wing, they are completely off the US spectrum, airing their ideas in the USA would make you the laughing stock of the country. They do very well in debates though, and I really believe I'm being objective about that.
I think you may be a bit too pessimistic about direct democracy and how it compares to a republic.. In the Dutch system a government can "crash" when it's elected members simply can't compromise with one another and form a strong majority coalition, resulting in new elections. This is how the LPF was "rid of"...
This is of course somewhat like comparing nuclear physics to astronomy
Last edited:
Longhorn85
New member
WODIN said:
Negative. The systems works great now. Candidates must win the approval of a majority of states to win. If not for the electoral college, all the power would reside in major population centers like Philly, NY, LA and Chicago. Those are the only voices that would be heeded.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it ain't broke.
Robert
Im familiar with the European parliamentary systems, and that is exactly what I would not desire.
I understand the argument that fringe groups should have a voice, I just have no desire to see it implemented They belong on the fringes, noisy but otherwsie ognored The unfortunate consequence of such a system is exactly what you referenced. One mixed election, one charismatic spokesperson, and all of a sudden what should be a curiousity becomes a threat. This is especially true in times of crisis.
The "people" are largely idiots. There is no magic ritual which suddenly turns people so ignorant that you wouldn't let them wash your car into informed and responsible voters. The problem isnt that too few people vote, but that far too many do. By definition after the first 30%, the rest are intellectual failures. Why should the 10% least intelligent percentage of Americans be encouraged to vote as frequently as the top 10%
Im familiar with the European parliamentary systems, and that is exactly what I would not desire.
I understand the argument that fringe groups should have a voice, I just have no desire to see it implemented
They belong on the fringes, noisy but otherwsie ognored The unfortunate consequence of such a system is exactly what you referenced. One mixed election, one charismatic spokesperson, and all of a sudden what should be a curiousity becomes a threat. This is especially true in times of crisis.The "people" are largely idiots. There is no magic ritual which suddenly turns people so ignorant that you wouldn't let them wash your car into informed and responsible voters. The problem isnt that too few people vote, but that far too many do. By definition after the first 30%, the rest are intellectual failures. Why should the 10% least intelligent percentage of Americans be encouraged to vote as frequently as the top 10%
Robert Jan
New member
it's pretty broke IMO if Kentucky can stand up to California in political power.
(I named KY as an example I know very little about it dont take offence)
(I named KY as an example I know very little about it dont take offence)
Longhorn85
New member
Robert Jan said:
Yes, but that is the way the "United States of America" was founded, otherwise it would just be called "America." Each state has power. This is a good thing because what it does is bring power closer to the populace. Your Senator can get shit done for you.
Robert Jan
New member
Sure I understand. You simply restated it.
So why the state identity so important to Americans?
So why the state identity so important to Americans?
Longhorn85
New member
Robert Jan said:
The founding fathers were fearsome of "big government" = tyranny.
Similar threads
