PDA

View Full Version : how is a president elected?




garrettwombat
06-24-2008, 10:33 PM
i got to thinking about it...
and there is no set rule for how someone becomes president.
the constitution says nothing...
we vote out of tradition...

is there anywhere legally bounding an election to office?

just curious not trying to make a point or anything...

IPSecure
06-24-2008, 10:39 PM
Electoral College (United States) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College)

The Electoral College is the body of representatives which formally elects the President and Vice President of the United States.

Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, U.S. citizens cast votes for electoral college representatives, known as electors. While electors are theoretically free to vote for the candidate of their choice, in practice they pledge to vote for specific candidates.[1] Thus, voters indirectly vote for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.[2] Because all of the electors from a state will generally vote for the Presidential candidate that receives the most votes in that state, U.S. Presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.

The Electoral College is composed of 538 electors.[3] Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Additionally, the District of Columbia is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states.[4] U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College.

Each elector casts two votes: one for President and one for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a 270-vote majority of the Electoral College. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the House of Representatives.[5] Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.[6]

The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. Although not originally the case in a majority of states, at present, 48 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-take-all popular vote rule –– voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes in the state wins the support of all of that state’s electors. Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote. Because the vast majority of electors are chosen by a statewide vote, U.S. Presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous first past the post elections, rather than a single national election.

Candidates with less than a plurality of the nationwide popular vote can win a Presidential election. This has happened on several occasions in American history.[7] Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.

Check out the Texas Legislature Voting: It's all about Integrity! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask)

TastyWheat
06-25-2008, 12:05 AM
I know it's popular for the Democrats, but should we be pursuing a national popular vote amendment? I mean, didn't the founders set up the electoral college for logistical reasons?

Alawn
06-25-2008, 12:22 AM
I know it's popular for the Democrats, but should we be pursuing a national popular vote amendment? I mean, didn't the founders set up the electoral college for logistical reasons?

A national popular vote would be horrible. No way. We absolutely have to have the electoral votes in each states be the number it is now (number in house + number in senate). Otherwise only the big state matter at all. It is already based on the population in each state. Making a national popular vote would be like getting rid of the senate. Now I might consider having a state's votes be proportional not winner take all but I could never support a popular vote.

TastyWheat
06-25-2008, 01:46 AM
Well, I understand some historic elections would've gone the other way if there was no electoral college, but is it really right to seemingly disenfranchise millions of voters? I mean, think of all the Republicans in California that have their votes fall by the wayside because of the overabundance of Democrats in the state.

freedom-maniac
06-25-2008, 06:58 AM
IT's because we're a Republic that we have the college.

SnappleLlama
06-25-2008, 07:19 AM
How is a president elected? Through the glorious use of hanging chads and malfunctioning Diebold systems!

Alawn
06-25-2008, 09:36 AM
Well, I understand some historic elections would've gone the other way if there was no electoral college, but is it really right to seemingly disenfranchise millions of voters? I mean, think of all the Republicans in California that have their votes fall by the wayside because of the overabundance of Democrats in the state.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral college. That is just how CA decided to divide up the votes. They could have divided the votes up proportionally but they decided to do winner take all instead. Each state getting the number of votes as they have house and senate seats is way better than a nation wide popular vote.

SovereignMN
06-25-2008, 10:04 AM
Getting rid of the electoral college would be horrible. Here are just a couple of many problems with having the President decided by a national popular vote:
1) Each state has different ballot access regulations. In theory someone could win the Presidency today just by achieving access in a handful of states. This wouldn't be possible with a national popular vote. The only way around this would be to have a uniform system of ballot-access laws...but that would violate State Sovereignty to a horrible degree.
2) Each community has different ways of casting ballots. In the case of a close race how would you have a nation wide recount? You could get around this by having the feds adopt a uniform way of casting ballots but that would violate State Sovereignty to a horrible degree.

The electoral college works just fine.

TastyWheat
07-19-2008, 11:26 AM
Be aware that states are trying to enact a National Popular Vote plan, wherein they throw all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.

TastyWheat
07-19-2008, 11:43 AM
----

GunnyFreedom
07-19-2008, 11:49 AM
As large and diverse as our nation is, with a few highly populated cities, a person running for President in a non-elecoral college environment cond concievably say, "If I become President, I will cut $5,000 checks to every citzen of New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles." and thus win the Presidency. They would be President of 4 cities rather than President of the nation.

The Electoral College was originally supposed to be one of the lynchpins that distinguished us as a Republic rather than a Democracy.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-19-2008, 11:50 AM
A national popular vote would be horrible. No way. We absolutely have to have the electoral votes in each states be the number it is now (number in house + number in senate). Otherwise only the big state matter at all. It is already based on the population in each state. Making a national popular vote would be like getting rid of the senate. Now I might consider having a state's votes be proportional not winner take all but I could never support a popular vote.

yup. However, we should go back to the old days when the congress appointed the senators.

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 12:15 PM
IT's because we're a Republic that we have the college.

Please explain why the current College Electoral System relates to being a Republic?

JosephTheLibertarian
07-19-2008, 12:17 PM
Please explain why the current College Electoral System relates to being a Republic?

I think it allows every state proper representation. no?

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 12:21 PM
If anything, it seems biased, and un-democratic.

And... Why should Primaries for party nominations be heavily influenced by states that are the first "cab off the rank?"

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 12:25 PM
I think it allows every state proper representation. no?

So states with the largest voting populations are overly saturated with election-eering, and pork barelling, whilst less populated states are ignored?

JosephTheLibertarian
07-19-2008, 12:29 PM
So states with the largest voting populations are overly saturated with election-eering, and pork barelling, whilst less populated states are ignored?

hmm. I don't know how you came to THAT conclusion. ;) but wouldn't states with less people just be ignored all the same in a popular vote scenario?

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 12:44 PM
hmm. I don't know how you came to THAT conclusion. ;) but wouldn't states with less people just be ignored all the same in a popular vote scenario?

Yes, to a certain extent.

But certainly to a lesser extent than is current.

Another example of the inequity of the current system is in the candidates selection of running-mates.

A Vice Presidential nominee is often selected on which state he resides in due to Electoral College votes.

For example, a running mate is more likely to be selected from Texas than Montana.

These are not "hard and fast" rules,
but they are obvious nuances that are worth consideration.

GunnyFreedom
07-19-2008, 12:52 PM
Actually, the candidates have to spend MORE attention on less populated states BECAUSE of the electoral college. The electoral college points to our being a Republic because Presidents are elected state-by-state rather than nationally. States are allotted representation based on the House (proportional to population) and Senate (all states equal) combined.

Indeed, the two allotted for Senators do little to ameliorate the large population differences when faced with scores of Representatives, but they do do something. A good example is when Bush won in 2000, yes he lost the popular vote, but won something like 85% of the counties. Look at the county-by-county maps that were almost entirely red, with a few blue splotches around the high population density areas.

The Electoral College lends us toward a Republic rather than a Democracy because a candidate has to campaign EVERYWHERE rather than only in the 5 to 10 most populated cities only.

The Democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, because they tend to be more 'democratic' and will vote their constituents funds from the public treasury. The Republicans want to keep it because they tend more 'republican' and will vote for the 'good of the republic' despite what the people ask for.

I mean, not that our current crop of republicans qualify as voting for the good of the republic mind you...

But the Founders were adamant that they did not want a Democracy in the US, but a Republic. Democracies inevitably succumb to tyranny, and democracies always begin to fail once the public realizes that they can vote for the guy who will pay them at the expense of others.

If we were a straight democracy in the US, then the lower density populations would be constantly being robbed to give to the higher density populations, thus assuring Presidents would hold on to power. A straight democracy will inevitably become irrevocably socialist, and the US's movement in the last 80 some odd years towards rejecting republicanism and adopting democracy (something the Founders unilaterally rejected!) has been primarily responsible for our nations movement towards socialism.

GunnyFreedom
07-19-2008, 12:55 PM
Yes, to a certain extent.

But certainly to a lesser extent than is current.

Another example of the inequity of the current system is in the candidates selection of running-mates.

A Vice Presidential nominee is often selected on which state he resides in due to Electoral College votes.

For example, a running mate is more likely to be selected from Texas than Montana.

These are not "hard and fast" rules,
but they are obvious nuances that are worth consideration.

That's simply not true! A smaller state has to receive MORE attention under the Electoral College because they have more representation than they would in a straight democracy.

A straight democracy would have representation equivalent to their ratio of members in the House of Reps. The Electoral College adds 2 more to all states equally, thus evening out the proportions to some degree. Not to mention the state-by-state races mean that they HAVE to pay attention to states, whereas in a straight democracy, they could get their 51% simply by focusing on the largest 5 to 10 CITIES in the nation ONLY.

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 01:08 PM
That's simply not true! A smaller state has to receive MORE attention under the Electoral College because they have more representation than they would in a straight democracy.

A straight democracy would have representation equivalent to their ratio of members in the House of Reps. The Electoral College adds 2 more to all states equally, thus evening out the proportions to some degree. Not to mention the state-by-state races mean that they HAVE to pay attention to states, whereas in a straight democracy, they could get their 51% simply by focusing on the largest 5 to 10 CITIES in the nation ONLY.

Obviously, more densely populated states will receive more attention from candidates regardless of the electoral system.

However, I fail to see why a clear majority of voters should not determine the outcome of an election.

Perhaps election results should be determined in Florida, by the courts, and the Governors discretion...

GunnyFreedom
07-19-2008, 01:38 PM
Obviously, more densely populated states will receive more attention from candidates regardless of the electoral system.

However, I fail to see why a clear majority of voters should not determine the outcome of an election.

Perhaps election results should be determined in Florida, by the courts, and the Governors discretion...

In a nation as big and diverse as the US, in a straight democracy, the Presidents would need only focus on New York, Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles. At least with the Electoral College they do have to focus on 8 states rather than 4 cities!

200 Years ago, this was not an issue. The populations of the states were much lower, and the 2 Senatorial electors made a much bigger difference than they do today. Electoral College reform should focus on increasing the representation of Senatorial Electors. For instance, if we had 16 Senetorial electors per state rather than 2, then that would even out the distribution more, and the Candidates would probably have to focus on 25-30 states rather than on the current 8.

But even so, the President being President of 8 states is still better than the President being President only of 4 cities!

Literally, in a straight democracy in the US, all a Candidate would have to do is to promise to pay $5000 each to every citizen of NY, LA, Chicago, and Atlanta. He would win the election, and steal all that money from the rest of us to pay off the people who voted for him.

The Founding Fathers said over and over and over again that they did not want a Democracy, that Democracies were doomed to failure, and as a testament to that fact, the US did indeed start crawling down the long road towards failure around 80 years ago when we became more 'democratic' and less 'republican.'

So, The Founding Fathers overwhelmingly rejected Democracy. It turns out that as the US has moved towards Democracy we began to fail spectacularly, proving the Founders right. The apparent abuses of the Electoral College system can be plainly seen to become worse in a direct democracy as evidenced by the 2000 election. And studying the question logically and rationally reveals that the minority and rural areas would be continuously robbed to benefit the majority and urban areas in order to secure a reign on power under a direct democracy.

Yet people still prefer the direct democracy, why? because we get a warm and fuzzy feeling every time we say the word 'democracy' maybe?

I don't get it. Every exercise in reason and study of history proves unequivocally that a Republic works better, and that the Electoral College (which needs reform mind you) helps to prevent untold electoral abuses, but people see this, allow it to register, shrug their shoulders, and say we need to move towards a direct democracy anyway.

i seriously don't get it.

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 01:42 PM
Bush would not have seen his first term.

Instead, a farcical process was allowed.

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 01:45 PM
And what about the Primaries?

States out-bidding each other to decide a nominee, 2 x years prior to the actual election.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 01:47 PM
Bush would not have seen his first term.

Instead, a farcical process was allowed.

It wouldn't have matter who was elected. By that point, the money masters have each candidate bought and paid for... the money masters have won every time.
All this time, we thought one was good and one was bad...they both were bad. all this time.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 01:50 PM
the system is fine as is. I want a republic, not a democracy.
the people changing this system to a democracy through shit like property taxes need to go.

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 01:54 PM
It wouldn't have matter who was elected. By that point, the money masters have each candidate bought and paid for... the money masters have won every time.
All this time, we thought one was good and one was bad...they both were bad. all this time.


And history is repeating itself...

Now.

The Middle East is going to be a Never Ending Story.

And...

The dollar is lost.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 01:56 PM
And history is repeating itself...

Now.

The Middle East is going to be a Never Ending Story.

And...

The dollar is lost.

It will repeat itself if we fail. So either you shut the fuck up and help us succeed or stop wasting our time.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 01:57 PM
oops, sorry.. but yeh, we need to get shit done.. not bitch about it.

slothman
07-19-2008, 01:57 PM
I personally like the EC.
Through mathematic anylises it was determined that an individual has more power with the EC than without.
If that is true, which I believe, then maybe another level would make it even better.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 02:00 PM
I personally like the EC.
Through mathematic anylises it was determined that an individual has more power with the EC than without.
If that is true, which I believe, then maybe another level would make it even better.

I think the balance is broken with another level of ECs.
The first level of ECs are responsible to their state, who would the second set be? congressional ECs that elect among themselves ECs to go an behalf of the state?
It is unnecesary and improper to have two levels of ECs.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 02:03 PM
Remember, we are a Republic of Republics. Not Just one Nation, and Not just many states... but THESE UNITED STATES.
an all in one, zen, balance thing...republic of republics. which means i can have sovereignty without a king.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 02:04 PM
A democracy is the argument for a King.

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 02:05 PM
It will repeat itself if we fail. So either you shut the fuck up and help us succeed or stop wasting our time.


I have tried torchbearer.

I donated my hard-earned to Ron Paul.

If you don't like me telling you what you don't want to hear...

I suggest you cup your hand and attempt to find your bollocks.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 02:07 PM
I have tried torchbearer.

I donated my hard-earned to Ron Paul.

If you don't like me telling you what you don't want to hear...

I suggest you cup your hand and attempt to find your bollocks.

I've already heard it, saying it again doesn't make it stick anymore than the first hundred times.
THe ship is going down unless we take it back before the pirates sink the bitch.
I need people with fire in their guts, to get pissed enough to push back...
And we need to keep this fire burning...year end, year out until we the constitution is restored.

Kludge
07-19-2008, 02:08 PM
we need to get shit done.. not bitch about it.


Change, bro!

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 02:10 PM
How can a pacifist have rights if he isn't willing to fight back when approached by outside aggression?
When our government becomes destructive to our ends, it is our responsible to change it. and by any means necessary.

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 02:12 PM
Change, bro!

really think about it. change. that is what we must do.

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 02:16 PM
I've already heard it, saying it again doesn't make it stick anymore than the first hundred times.
THe ship is going down unless we take it back before the pirates sink the bitch.
I need people with fire in their guts, to get pissed enough to push back...
And we need to keep this fire burning...year end, year out until we the constitution is restored.

I agree with you.

I have 26 relatives in the States that I do my best to convince.

Get elected and kick some authority.

During the meantime...

I'll do my best to weaken the state.

Ozwest
07-19-2008, 02:27 PM
I've already heard it, saying it again doesn't make it stick anymore than the first hundred times.
THe ship is going down unless we take it back before the pirates sink the bitch.
I need people with fire in their guts, to get pissed enough to push back...
And we need to keep this fire burning...year end, year out until we the constitution is restored.

Shall the common man be pushed back into the mud, or shall he not?

TastyWheat
07-20-2008, 11:59 PM
Well, doing a quickie calculation of the worst case scenario which do you think is worse:

Electoral College: winning with 29% of the vote
Popular Vote: winning with 9 states

The problem is that most states are winner-take-all with their electoral votes.

hypnagogue
07-21-2008, 01:02 AM
I see zero benefits to an electoral college. The only instance wherein it affords greater electing power to the states are those where the winner takes all. That in turn makes the votes of individuals in larger states, because 51% of them will bring with them the large portion of votes they didn't earn, more important. It also makes the votes of closely contested states more important.

Consider this: I live in Texas. Why should I bother to vote? My vote is in effect decided for me by the majority of the Republicans in this state. My vote is literally used for someone I don't support.

If Electors voted proportionally to the outcome of the voting in their state that would alleviate this problem to the degree that a small number could be divided properly to fit the proportions. What then would be the point of the Electoral College?

TastyWheat
07-23-2008, 11:40 PM
By and large the federal government ignores the states and passes laws that directly affect the citizens (some more than others). With this kind of behavior (bypassing state powers) a popular vote system is fairer.

foofighter20x
07-24-2008, 07:33 AM
I see a lot of bad information in here.

1) House elections are national, senate elections federal (or at least they were); electing the executive is a blend of the two. --Madison, in the Federalist

2) It's completely likely that the framers didn't foresee the rise of parties. They probably hoped Americans would be above that. As such, they saw sectionalism as being the bigger problem. The structure and functioning of the EC lends good weight to the assertion that the framers designed the EC to only be a nominating body, and that most elections of the executive would go to the House, where the people's representatives would decide.

3) The problem is not the small states. Large swing states with winner take all are worth more than the small states.

Read the wikipedia article, in full. That one editor, smp038, or whatever, and myself have put A LOT of effort into making it as factual as possible and presenting it neutrally.

TastyWheat
07-30-2008, 07:57 PM
The way it works right now, most states having winner-take-all general elections, the system won't stand. Too many people ARE being disenfranchised.