Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Electoral vs Popular Vote

  1. #1

    Electoral vs Popular Vote

    I'm still new to how this whole thing works. How would you address this:

    I spent 4 years studying the electoral system; what do I know. Note only that, but he does not have very many friends for the electoral votes. You do realize that you cannot be president based on the popular votes? If you research the Senators and the US Reps and the number of votes they can cast per their constitutes; most the electoral votes are called for already. Whose vote in the Senate and House of Representatives does he have in his pocket? This is after all politics.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    In the entire history of electoral college, they went with the popular vote when concerning the president.
    (mind you, they dont have to.)
    Just remember... Price of security is freedom. RG

  4. #3
    I could address it, if you can translate that quote into English

  5. #4

    Popular vote v. Electoral

    That's not how it works.

    The electoral vote is based on the popular vote in each state. If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, his slate of electors is elected.

    Each state has electoral votes based on the number of reps and senators they have. Each state has at least 3.

    The person who wins the popular vote in states totalling 270 or more electoral votes is the winner.

    This is how it works 95% of the time.

    If there is no electoral vote winner -- the election is decided in the House. In that scenario, each state gets 1 vote -- that vote is decided by a majority vote of their congressional delegation.

    In short -- get the popular votes you need, and you'll probably win.

    Huey
    Huey P. Long, "The Kingfish"
    Former Governor, Senator and leading opponent of the Big Bankers.
    Kingfish Consulting: Experience winning elections, since 1928.

  6. #5
    There have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision. Could there be enough electors (who favor the status quo or just don't like RP) to vote against Ron Paul even if Ron Paul won the state's popular vote?
    Last edited by Energy; 12-14-2007 at 03:25 PM.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Energy View Post
    There have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision. Could there be enough electors (who favor the status quo or just don't like RP) to vote against Ron Paul even if Ron Paul won the state's popular vote?
    It's only happened twice, that I can think of; once, it happened because it was supposed to happen (Preventing one sector of the country from dominating politics), the second time? No doubt, under the table dealings.

    it could happen again, but you'd be playing with fire.

  8. #7
    Since WWII there has been 9 Presidential elections where the electoral college did not vote completely as they pledged. They were mostly protest votes but a couple accidents as well.

    2004: 1 elector from MN voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry. Probably an accident as they also voted for Edwards as VP.

    2000: 1 elector from DC did not cast their vote. Probably an accident or protest.

    1988: 1 elector from WV voted for Lloyd Bentson instead of Michael Dukakis. Probably an accident as they also voted for Bentson as VP.

    1976: 1 elector from WA voted for Ronald Reagon instead of Gerald Ford. Certainly a protest vote.

    1972; 1 elector from VA voted for (libertarian?) John Haspers and Theodora Nathan as President/VP instead of Nixon. Certainly a protest vote.

    1968: 1 elector from NC voted for George Wallace instead of Nixon. Certainly a protest vote.

    1960: 6 electors (out of 11) from AL voted for Harry Byrd/Strom Thurmond instead of Kennedy/Johnson. I believe that electors may have been elected directly based on who they pledged for but I'm not certain.

    1960: 1 elector from OK voted for Byrd/Thurmond instead of Nixon/Goldwater. A protest vote.

    1956: 1 elector from AL voted for Walter Jones instead of Adali Stevenson. A protest vote.

    1948: 1 elector fron TN voted for Strom Thurmond instead of Harry Truman. A protest vote.


    http://www.usconstitution.net/elecvotes.html

  9. #8
    I spent 4 years studying the electoral system; what do I know. Note only that, but he does not have very many friends for the electoral votes. You do realize that you cannot be president based on the popular votes? If you research the Senators and the US Reps and the number of votes they can cast per their constitutes; most the electoral votes are called for already. Whose vote in the Senate and House of Representatives does he have in his pocket? This is after all politics.
    If Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, he and the party will secure loyal electors (for example, the 27 most committed Paulites in Florida, 55 in California, etc.). When the people vote in the various states, they're really voting for a list of electors (the GOP will have one, the Dems will have another, etc.). These electors, who are not members of Congress, will then vote for their candidate of choice, which is almost always the one that they pledged.

    In the history of the Electoral College, not once has one of the rare "faithless" electors who votes contrary to what they promised actually changed the outcome of the election. Often they only do it because they know a candidate won enough electoral votes elsewhere.

    Also, not counting potential fraud (1876) or ballot-marking mistakes (2000), the only election (since the end of America's brief one-party era) won by the popular vote loser was 1888, when Grover Cleveland lost his bid for reelection, although he won four years later anyway.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    All makes sense. Thanks guys.
    Last edited by Energy; 12-14-2007 at 10:54 PM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Energy View Post
    I spent 4 years studying the electoral system; what do I know. Note only that, but he does not have very many friends for the electoral votes. You do realize that you cannot be president based on the popular votes? If you research the Senators and the US Reps and the number of votes they can cast per their constitutes; most the electoral votes are called for already. Whose vote in the Senate and House of Representatives does he have in his pocket? This is after all politics.
    Whoever wrote this seems to be implying that the Senators and Congressmen are the ones who cast the electoral votes. That is COMPLETELY false! Each state receives a number of electoral votes equal to to its combined number of Senators and Congressmen, but that's the only similarity to what's written above.



Similar Threads

  1. Should we elect the President by popular vote or electoral college?
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 11-12-2012, 05:58 PM
  2. Electoral v. popular vote - help me out here
    By susano in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-06-2012, 11:52 PM
  3. Electoral-Vote.com has possible Republican Senate
    By ljwestmcsd in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-09-2010, 08:08 AM
  4. Electoral vote tie: McCain 269, Obama 269
    By Bradley in DC in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-26-2008, 08:45 PM
  5. Popular or Electoral ?
    By TSOL in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-15-2008, 04:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •