Electoral college, why vote if our votes don't matter?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It also needs to be said that land doesn't have a vote lol. Geographical maps have absolutely nothing to do with a representative democracy.

For example, Memphis TN alone has more people than the entire state of Wyoming. It also has more people than the entire state of and Vermont. And Memphis isn't even one of the top 20 most populous US cities.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Nope. You have to have at least 270 electoral college votes, which is a clear majority of the 538 electoral college votes. Otherwise, the House of Reps gets to appoint the President. Remember, we're talking about the Electoral College, not the popular vote. You only need 1 more vote than your opponent to win the State itself (the popular vote wins States), but you'd still receive all of the Electoral College votes for that State.

For example, Clinton in '92 only won 43% of the popular vote. And he won some States without getting a clear majority of their votes (like California, where he "won" but only got 46% of the vote). However, he was still awarded all of the Electoral College votes for those States. So in the end, he and Gore "won" the presidency with an astounding 370 Electoral College votes, even though they didn't get a clear majority of the popular vote.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't believe that is true. I don't believe there has been an honest election since Roosevelt and his four straight if they were honest elections.

But your a joke because right after what you quoted me saying was that they do seem to honor it.

So you and your deceptive editing are just a minor nuisance. I don't understand why everyone is saying that the electoral college isn't bound by popular vote. What is the source of this myth and why do so many people believe it?

Who is in this electoral college? Are there people who represent it? If so, what is their purpose?

If the popular vote determines the outcome, why not let the overall popular vote decide instead of the more manipulatable electoral system were sometimes it comes down to one state like when Illinois was the deciding state and the Outfit fixed it for Kennedy only to be double crossed. Or Florida and its ineptitude being so great the Supreme court illegally declared Bush the winner. It seems more problematic than anything.

Why are you so confrontational? You are too vehement about small stuff and ignore people's questions by questioning the question, you need to present yourself more honorably because you chose to represent your fraternity in your screen name so you should be a role model not a trouble maker.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Nope. You have to have at least 270 electoral college votes, which is a clear majority of the 538 electoral college votes.

That is why I used the words 'simple majority'. A simple majority means that any amount over a tie would result in victory. A clear majority, to my anyway, implies that you would need more. I think we are just arguing semantics as you need to have more than your opponent, by any margin, to win.

For example, Clinton in '92 only won 43% of the popular vote. And he won some States without getting a clear majority of their votes (like California, where he "won" but only got 46% of the vote). However, he was still awarded all of the Electoral College votes for those States. So in the end, he and Gore "won" the presidency with an astounding 370 Electoral College votes, even though they didn't get a clear majority of the popular vote.

That is different as he may not have had a plurality of the popular vote but the Electoral votes were Constitutionally allocated based on each state's laws. Some states still allocate on proportional instead of winner take all.

originally posted by: Mryhh
I don't believe that is true.

You can believe whatever you want, the facts are indisputable.

But your a joke because right after what you quoted me saying was that they do seem to honor it.

What are you talking about? The post you are replying to was not edited. It is two sentences long.

a reply to: enlightenedservant
Dude, that is why I specifically said US President and Electoral college in my OP. You are correcting me for no reason because I am certain that nobody thinks I am talking about anything but Presidential elections. I was very specific so wtf? Are you just in a negative mood and need to criticize? It's been a good thread your the only one who mentioned Senators and Congress etc.

You underestimate people's intelligence by assuming that they wont be able to understand the thread, the mention of the Electoral college is in the OP stop complaining.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You need a simple majority to win the State. This victory awards the winner all of the Electoral College votes.

You need a clear majority of Electoral College votes nationally to win the Presidency (270 out of the 538 available). Anything less than that clear majority gives the House of Reps the ability to appoint the President. (Technically, the House votes for the President instead of "appointing". And I think each State only gets 1 vote each. Too lazy to look it up.)

Pretend that there was a near complete voter apathy and only 3 people in each State voted for a presidential candidate during the election cycle. The candidate who won Texas would still get all 38 of its Electoral College votes, even though he/she would've received no more than 3 actual votes. But the candidates would still need to receive a clear majority of Electoral College votes (270) in order to outright win the Presidency.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I think we are saying the same thing as a 'clear majority' appears to be what I am referring to when I say 'simple majority'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I thought a a simple majority was more like "the majority of votes cast", while a clear majority was more like "the majority of a specific requirement". Most US elections only need a simple majority, so it won't matter how many votes are cast in order to win them.

But the Presidency and some votes in different legislatures require a specific minimum number of votes, which is usually a majority of a set number of available votes. Kind of like how some councils can't pass anything without a majority of its total members approving it. If there are 11 members on the council and 6 abstain from voting, the council can't pass the measure. It would require a "clear majority" (6 of the 11 total members) to approve it, even if a simple majority of the present members approved it (3 of the 5 who didn't abstain).

Sorry, I'm a bit of a nerd. No hard feelings. (Just to add to my dorkiness, a "super majority" takes it even further by requiring a large enough majority to override a veto. Usually it's 60% or so, depending on the procedure.)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

When has the h.o.r. ever actually elected the President? Has it ever happened? Ive never heard of that before, why didn't that happen in 2000?

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: enlightenedservant

When has the h.o.r. ever actually elected the President? Has it ever happened? Ive never heard of that before, why didn't that happen in 2000?

Because in 2000 it was all about Florida. Gore had more votes nationally, but that did not get him an electoral college majority unless he won Florida. The Supreme Court came in because every county in Florida seemed to have a different voting mechanism and different recount standards. The said because of this they should stop the recount and thus gave the presidency to W Bush who had the vote lead at the time by 537 votes out of more than 6 million votes, thus giving W Bush the 25 electoral votes and the Presidency. Did not agree with the Supreme Court decision on this.

a reply to: Mryhh
a reply to: UnBreakable
a reply to: neo96
a reply to: tadaman


And once again the point is missed.

The President is not a Representative of the People. The popular vote is not intended to elect the President.

It seems amazing that some people still think that the Founders overlooked the concept of Popular Vote, when obviously it was established for the House of Representatives. Granted, the selection of Senators was taken away from the States so it's easier to see why some people think everything should be popular vote... but that does not make them correct.

So one again, repeat after me, the President is not a Representative of the People.

a reply to: blargo

Me either, it was not legal but everyone let it happen because George H.W. Bush has got that kind of muscle. I think he is close with Kissinger.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
Who are the electoral college members? What is a super delegate? I thought I knew but I really don't.

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Who are the electoral college members? What is a super delegate? I thought I knew but I really don't.

www.archives.gov...

A super-delegate is a member of the political party involved with the nomination of their candidate to the Presidency.

For the Democratic Party, any elected member in a state or federal position is a super-delegate, plus leaders of each state party. They are stationed in their state of residence or representation. Effectively, they are party insiders.

For the Republican party, there are only 3 super delegates per state, usually the top three of the state party structure and they are expected to vote for the majority winner of their state primaries... in the first round of nomination anyway.

Electors and Super-Delegates are usually not the same people, but there is no restriction from it happening.

a reply to: Mryhh

***EDIT: Boy I was wrong about that electoral college thing.***

You can read about super-delegates on wikipedia.

Unpledged delegates represent about a sixth of the overall delegate count (approximately 4,768) and come from several categories of prominent Democratic Party members:
*20 distinguished party leaders (DPL), consisting of current and former presidents, vice-presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs
*21 Democratic governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia)
*46 Democratic members of the United States Senate (including Washington, DC shadow senators)
*193 Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives (including non-voting delegates)
*437 elected members of the Democratic National Committee (including the chairs and vice-chairs of each state's Democratic Party)

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: Mryhh

When has the h.o.r. ever actually elected the President? Has it ever happened? Ive never heard of that before, why didn't that happen in 2000?

Waaay back in like the 1800s, I believe.

It's never happened since we've had all 48/50 states.

EDIT: (Fixed) Side Note: There have been four races in the 1900s (between 1912-1968) where three candidates running won at least two states. Each time the leading candidate had enough electoral votes to win though.

Here is a link explaining the electoral college.
www.archives.gov...

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: enlightenedservant

When has the h.o.r. ever actually elected the President? Has it ever happened? Ive never heard of that before, why didn't that happen in 2000?

I'm just explaining the process. It's literally in the 12th Amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are some euro#eers in Europe, who think they can exploit the ongoing election process and the outcome of the elections in favor of eurocracy. My bet is... They actually can't.