Author
|
Topic: Electoral College Curiosity
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 13 October 2008 06:49 PM
Of course, the popular vote means squat in the US Presidential election. The President is chosen by the Electoral College, and the votes of the Electoral College are determined by a winner take all allocation of the Electors in each state.*The number of a state's Electors is euqal to the number of Senators and Congresspersons from the state. Each state has two Senators and at least one Congressperson. Somehow the District of Columbis gets three Electors, but I'm not sure how. There are 538 Electors. To win the Presidency, a candidate requires 270 Electoral votes. Otherwise the contest goes to the House of Representatives, who vote by state delegations. In any event, CNN has an interesting interactive tool to predict the Electoral College vote. I used that for this little exercise. Assume that any state which has voted for the same party's candidate in the last four elections will vote for that same party's candidate again in this election. Assume also that John McCain's state of Arizona, which voted for Clinton in 1996 will vote for McCain. That gives a cumulative result of: Obama 248 (only 22 short) McCain 140 (130 short) Unallocated 150 Obama would need only 22/150 (14.67%) of the remaining votes, while McCain would need 130/150 (86.67%). (* Note - two states do not use the winner take all formulation. Maine and Nebraksa assign two Electors to whichever candidate carries the states, and one Elector to the candidate who carries each Congressional district. Notionally, the Maine delegation could therefore be divided 3-1 or 1-3, but not 2-2. Nebraska's delegation could be divided 3-2, 4-1, 1-4 or 2-3. In fact, neither state has ever divided their delegation since the current rules went into effect.) CNN Electoral Vote Calculator Electoral Vote Tracker
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 13 October 2008 10:28 PM
Subverting Democracy Through Electoral Fraud quote: The Electoral College It's another systemic flaw, but the term isn't in the Constitution. And until the early 1800s, it wasn't in common usage to describe the way presidents and vice-presidents are elected. However, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states:~//~ Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 then explained the original way electors chose presidents and vice-presidents: "The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President....after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President." Today, of course, there's no separation between the two. The Framers considered several options in choosing the current one, but clearly their own self-interest came first. One idea was for Congress to choose the president. Another was for state legislatures to do it, and a third was to let the people decide by popular vote. The Founders chose a fourth way - an indirect election by each state's-appointed Number of Electors. Nearly always they support voter wishes, but they're free to vote independently if they choose. In the nation's history, 157 electors did so and went against the will of the majority.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 14 October 2008 10:57 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Bush won in 2000 because the Supreme Court declared him the winner, and ordered the recounting of the votes to cease immediately.
The court ordered an end to the recounts IN FLORIDA. Thus, the Sectretary of State for Florida certified an electoral result which awarded Florida's 27 electoral votes to GWB. Although the 2004 race didn't carry it to the same extremes, there were similar concerns about voting irregularities in Ohio. Had Ohio gone to Kerry, he would have won 20 additional electoral votes, which would have given him a majority in the Electoral College - and therefore the presidency - even though GWB carried the popular vote nationally.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 14 October 2008 11:37 PM
Yes, in Florida. You said the authorities verified the results in both cases, which isn't true.And in 2004, the irregularities in Ohio were even worse, culminating in the department of friggin' homeland security shutting down the polling district that was going to decide it all, and counting the votes in secret. Neither of those elections should have been accepted by the political establishment, let alone the voters, but as we all know, the US political culture is hopelessly fucked. In fact, the only thing that interests me about the upcoming US election is the spectacle of what kind of nastiness they'll use to steal it this time, and if Obama's lead will be too big to fix.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|