Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Electorial College  
User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 830 times:

How does this work? Is it a physical place?

I studied this in American History, but I've forgotten how it works.

Thanks!

- Neil Harrison

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7780 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 802 times:

Welcome to a relic of our paranoid Founding Fathers. This is how the electoral college technically works. Each state gets a certain number of electoral votes, based on number of representatives in the house and senate. For example, Arizona gets 8 votes, 6 reps, 2 senators. And somehow the state elects their members of the electoral college, i don't recall directly how it worked. But nowadays all electoral votes of each state go to the candidate who wins the state's popular election. Even in elections where there is a close popular vote oftentimes the candidate that wins had an overwhelming win in the electoral vote. YES THIS IS CONFUSING. There are a lot of problems with this system and yes we should probably get rid of it, but it looks like it is staying.

A note about the current polls. While the polls show Bush or Gore with a lead of 2% or so, well within the margin of error I might add, this only reflects the popular vote and not the electoral count, which is difficult to determine.

The electoral college was just another way for Alexander Hamiliton to protect the government from the "bi-peds from the forest."



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 797 times:

I thought that's how it worked, but I was a little confused as to how a candidate could win the popular vote but lose the electorial vote.

Now for my next question:
Say Al Gore takes California and wins all 54 electorial votes, do all those 54 have to vote for Gore or can they decide "to hell the with American public, we're voting for Bush"?

Thanks!

- Neil Harrison


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 794 times:

Technicaly, yes that has happend but there not supposed to.
In 1888 the winner of the popular vote lost in the electoral college and therefore, the winner of the electoral college won the presidency.

This year is very close and Bush could very well win the popular vote. Al Gore however could win the electoral vote winning the Presidency.
Reason is, is because Gore leads in the big states like California (54), New York (33) and Illinois (22). Just those 3 states alone are 109 combined.
Bush leads in small states like North Dakota (3), Utah (5) and Wyoming (3). Bush also has Texas (32). Bush may win in a landslide in the smaller states. Gore could just barly win the larger states giving him the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Every 10 years a cesus is taken to determine how many representatives and electoral votes a state is worth. This year the census was taken but the results will be availible next year. Texas has surpased New York as the second largest state but the electoral count is from the 1990 census. The 2000 census will be reflected in the 2004 election.

I hope this makes some since.




Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 789 times:

Neil:
The word is electoral. There's no "i" in it.

Greeneyes


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7780 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 785 times:

It has been a very long time since a candidate won the popular vote but not the electoral college. In 1992 Clinton only won 42% of the popular vote, remember Ross got 20%, but won the electoral college by far.

As for voting for the electoral college, all electoral votes in that state go to the candidate who wins it. It used to not be this way, at least one state in 1992 I believe still split some electoral votes (I am thinking Vermont or New Hamshire here).

As for this election. I think whoever wins will win in both categories. Though it is going to be a close one. All the polls still show neither candidate with no more than +/- 2% lead... which is within the margin of error and statisitcally a dead heat.

Neil, if you can get yourself a good American government text it should be able to explain it better than I can.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 786 times:

Nebraska (5) and Maine (4) are the only two states that award electoral votes by congressional disrtict. Clinton 1992 won 43%, Bush 35%, Perot 22%. others 1%

There has been a large population shift from north to south over the past 10 years. That acually be going on for the past 45 years.

Bush could win by large margins in the south but the northern states whare Gore may win still have more electoral clout. This is why Gore may still win despite some polls showing Bush ahead.

Its hard to imagine a candidate winning with out California, New York, Pennsylvannia and Illinois. Gore leads in these states.
Florida is not a sure thing for Gore yet but he leads there in some polls.
If Gore can win there too, Bush is out of the race.

No one knows who the next president will be. Thats why most candidates for House and Senate in swing states are not embracing Gore or Bush. Its too close!

Just get out and vote! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineN312RC From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 2682 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 780 times:

You must be talking about the Electrical College. Where people go to become electricians.  


Fly Delta's Big Jets!
User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 776 times:

Ah... sorry about that. My spelling isn't want it used to be!

Thank god you don't have to know how to spell to fly an airplane, otherwise there'd be wreckage of my small aircraft scattered all over West Lafayette, Indiana!  

- Neil Harrison


User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 772 times:

Dear Neil:

I think you misunderstood. I don't care how you spell things. I am a terrible speller. I just wanted you to know how to pronounce it. It is a 4-syllable word, not a 5-syllable one.

But back to the subject, when Bush and Perot ran against Clinton they got more popular votes than Clinton didn't they?

This means that more people voted against Clinton than voted for him. Yet he won the power position--and abused it!

Is this truth?

Greeneyes

Ps-Neil, I highly admire you. PLease don't ever think otherwise (unless you turn toward the left).


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7780 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 772 times:

Here are the numbers from the 1992 election.

CLINTON: 370 Electoral votes, 68.8%, 44,908,233 pop votes 43%
BUSH: 168 31.2%, 39,102,282 pop votes 37%
PEROT: 0 0%, 19,741,048 pop votes 19%.

I won't interprete these numbers too much. Clinton only had 5 million votes on H.W. Bush. It was a weird election and Perot certainly effected it. It would be difficult to predict where his votes would have gone if he had not been in the race.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlinePilot1113 From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2333 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 765 times:

Thanks!

Don't worry, I never thought you felt less of me. I know how pronounce it, but to spell it is a tad different.

I'm never going to swing to the left, unless the Democrats can convince me otherwise (which isn't going to happen in this life time -- I was born and raised in Massachusetts and yet I'm a republican, hum...).

Anyhow, have a good one!

- Neil Harrison


User currently offlineGreeneyes53787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 844 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 761 times:

2-things:

When Kennedys appeared in Mass they were outsiders, and not particularly invited to the party.

Old Man Joe was a Right Winger. In fact once he was riding in a plane sitting near Nixon. Joe said, "Dick, if Jack wasn't running I'd be voting for you." Then Nixon glanced at the young red head Joe was with in the plane. Then Mr Kennedy said, "Oh, she's my cousin..."

Yea right!

Greeneyes


User currently offlinePhilly phlyer From United States of America, joined May 1999, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 753 times:

The question was raised as to whether the members are required to vote according to how their state votes. The answer, believe it or not, is that they can change their vote.

In one presidential election this century, the winning candidate (I think it was either Roosevelt or Johnson) won all the states (how embarrassing for the looser). When the electoral college met, one member voted for the loosing candidate so that George Washington would remain the only president to ever receive a unanimous electoral college vote.

Little bit of trivia.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 751 times:

Are you sure it was just one state?
The biggest loser in the electoral college this last century was Alf Landon (republican) in 1936. He carried Vermont and Maine with a combined electoral count of 8.



Bring back the Concorde
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Official College Football Bowls Thread posted Thu Dec 20 2007 16:11:34 by Mke717spotter
The Ultimate College Hockey Rivalry Game posted Sat Jan 27 2007 07:04:37 by Graphic
The A.net College Hoops Thread... posted Sun Jan 29 2006 07:23:02 by USAFHummer
The Official College Baseball WS Thread! posted Tue Jun 7 2005 19:19:02 by S12PPL
The Better College Bowl Games posted Wed Jan 2 2002 00:35:11 by KROC
The Electorial College posted Mon Oct 30 2000 04:38:50 by Pilot1113
College Football And The BCS Fall Out posted Tue Jan 6 2009 02:00:21 by UAXDXer
The Official '06-'07 College Football Bowls Thread posted Sat Dec 30 2006 07:19:41 by Mke717Spotter
The Other Day At College.........funny Video posted Sun May 14 2006 13:47:23 by Columba
The Paying Of College Athletes, Your Thoughts? posted Fri Jan 27 2006 01:12:14 by SYRGuy