Jump to content

Electoral College Projection


Recommended Posts

i dont know about all that. i dont think the woman is particularly evil, just not very bright and possibly very dangerous. this is not to say that mcain and barack aren't dangerous in their own ways, only that the brazen confidence with which palin states her ignorant, outdated worldviews is a little more immediately frightening. to me at least.
reading this reminded me of a quotehttp://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel (listed as unsourced)
Men are basically smart or dumb and lazy or ambitious. The dumb and ambitious ones are dangerous and I get rid of them. The dumb and lazy ones I give mundane duties. The smart ambitious ones I put on my staff. The smart and lazy ones I make my commanders.
particularly the first category.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LOL, Franklin was talking about rejecting things like the Patriot Act and wiretapping and such. You know, giving up liberty (privacy) for more safety (from terrorists). I'll take "woefully out of context" for $600, Alex.Also, the Skins lost last night which means that everything is officially working against McCain.
Wrong. When the hell did I ever say that I think that the Patriot act was a good thing?Assumptions for $800?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, am I allowed a lazy moment?What was the original purpose of the electoral college? Personally, I see it as unnecessary and ignorant. Why can't we simply rely on the popular vote and banish the electoral college?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, am I allowed a lazy moment?What was the original purpose of the electoral college? Personally, I see it as unnecessary and ignorant. Why can't we simply rely on the popular vote and banish the electoral college?
Less populice colonies refused to join the Union if their voice was overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The larger ones wouldnt agree to totally eliminate the strength of their numbers with one state, one vote rule. It was a compromise.It is still valid. Without the power that smaller states have to swing an election the only states that would matter (and therefore receive a disproportionate share of pork) would be NY, CA and IL.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Less populice colonies refused to join the Union if their voice was overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The larger ones wouldnt agree to totally eliminate the strength of their numbers with one state, one vote rule. It was a compromise.It is still valid. Without the power that smaller states have to swing an election the only states that would matter (and therefore receive a disproportionate share of pork) would be NY, CA and IL.
Okay, on that premise, it makes sense. However, if the popular vote and the electoral vote are different, can we really say that each individual American vote counts? And isn't there also a provision??? that allows a state such as Texas with 34 electoral votes that are intended for McCain, to actually cast one or more electoral ballots for Obama?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, am I allowed a lazy moment?What was the original purpose of the electoral college? Personally, I see it as unnecessary and ignorant. Why can't we simply rely on the popular vote and banish the electoral college?
The original intent of the electoral college was to ensure that CNN was very exciting the night of the election. It gives us milestones when waiting to see who the next president is, and we can have regular "alerts" and calling of states, which draws people's attentions. Also, it enables people to run through different scenarios on how different candidates can win and in general makes the process of trying to predict the outcome of the election a lot more interesting. I think that's what the framers had in mind.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The original intent of the electoral college was to ensure that CNN was very exciting the night of the election. It gives us milestones when waiting to see who the next president is, and we can have regular "alerts" and calling of states, which draws people's attentions. Also, it enables people to run through different scenarios on how different candidates can win and in general makes the process of trying to predict the outcome of the election a lot more interesting. I think that's what the framers had in mind.
You know, I think this is by far the best argument in favor of the electoral system, that it makes for better television.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The original intent of the electoral college was to ensure that CNN was very exciting the night of the election. It gives us milestones when waiting to see who the next president is, and we can have regular "alerts" and calling of states, which draws people's attentions. Also, it enables people to run through different scenarios on how different candidates can win and in general makes the process of trying to predict the outcome of the election a lot more interesting. I think that's what the framers had in mind.
LOL, and exactly the reason I didn't watch any of those shows. I did flip past CNN when they were calling one state WON by Obama with only 15% of the vote in. The should be forbidden to broadcast anything about the election at all until 11pm EST and that way I could have found out who was voted off Dancing with the Stars AND watched The Mentalist before getting depressed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, on that premise, it makes sense. However, if the popular vote and the electoral vote are different, can we really say that each individual American vote counts? And isn't there also a provision??? that allows a state such as Texas with 34 electoral votes that are intended for McCain, to actually cast one or more electoral ballots for Obama?
The chance that a vote counts is greater under the EC than popular vote. There are 57 [sic] times as many chances and each vote is a larger % of the 57.Dont know about Tx, but what a state wants to do it can do...thats the point.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The chance that a vote counts is greater under the EC than popular vote. There are 57 [sic] times as many chances and each vote is a larger % of the 57.Dont know about Tx, but what a state wants to do it can do...thats the point.
So in reality, though it probably will not happen, the electoral vote COULD turn out very differently than what is projected? Meaning that even though it appears that Obama is winning the electoral vote, CA, NV, FL, OH etc. could all actually vote for McCain?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So in reality, though it probably will not happen, the electoral vote COULD turn out very differently than what is projected? Meaning that even though it appears that Obama is winning the electoral vote, CA, NV, FL, OH etc. could all actually vote for McCain?
No, my post wasnt clear. States dont have to require their electors to vote for the popular vote winner, but I don't know Tx law (or any other state for that matter) and what is permitted. I would think any state that gives electors discretion have some tight guidlines. (Like a desire to live another 3 weeks beyond when they cast their electoral vote)
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, my post wasnt clear. States dont have to require their electors to vote for the popular vote winner, but I don't know Tx law (or any other state for that matter) and what is permitted. I would think any state that gives electors discretion have some tight guidlines. (Like a desire to live another 3 weeks beyond when they cast their electoral vote)
From the "How Stuff Works" website...... "Faithless Electors"It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called "faithless electors." In response to these faithless electors' actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector's pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors. It's important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.
Link to post
Share on other sites

generally speaking....when you go vote you actually arent voting for the candidate but those chosen within you state that are electors represented by the candidate. 48 of the 50 states and DC imploy the 'winnter take all rule' meaning if one candidate wins a majority he wins all the electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska dole our there electoral votes by congressional district. So those can be split. The electors get together in December and vote for the candidate they represent. Since in most cases the electoral representatives are picked by there respective political party there isn't much threat of them changing the course of the election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...