As I was getting ready for work I heard one of the major networks saying that Gore could end up winning the "Popular vote" and Bush could end up winning the "Electoral College Vote" making Bush the winner,did anyone else hear this? I may need a civic lesson but I realize that the electorial vote is important but shouldnt the president be based upon what the people want.Granted I want Bush to win,but I would want the president to be whoever the people voted for. ------------------
Here ya go, this should help.... http://bbs.clutchcity.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001881.html ------------------ Save our children from the TAAS test: TAAS test report card TAAS test fact sheet
A relic of a bygone age. It's sad that it hasn't been rectified before now. No matter who ends up winning, nothing much is likely to happen one way or the other in the next 4 years because of the closeness of this election (not too many politicians will go out on even the slightest limb to help a pres with little chance at decent public support) and the Congress. Lots of gridlock coming our way. ------------------
No problem....I've been gone for years!! ------------------ Save our children from the TAAS test: TAAS test report card TAAS test fact sheet
I am so very happy. Gore has definitely won the popular vote (even if Bush wins Florida, it will only be 2-3,000 - while Gore is ahead in the popular vote by about 200,000). Now maybe enough outcry will be made to abolish that stupid EC. Three reasons to be happy: Rockets beat Lakers Arena Passed Electoral College lost ------------------ EZLN
The concern the forefathers had that prompted the creation of the electoral college is valid. Without the electoral college, the election would play out primarily in the population centers..namely big cities..and the little voice that states like Wyoming have would be even further quieted. Statistically the big cities would rule. That's exactly the kind of thing the Electoral College was trying to prevent. They were also wary of "mob rule", but that's a whole other topic we won't even get into!!! Hobbs -- you said whoever gets elected won't be able to do much??? huh?? Tell me what gridlock would exist if Bush wins along with retaining a Republican majority in Congress. I'm not understanding that. I agree that if Gore wins, we're looking at lots of gridlock given Congress..but I don't understand how Bush as President could lead to that. As for a mandate...I find this unimportant. I mean, Republicans tried to say that Clinton didn't have a mandate to lead because never once did he capture 50% of the popular vote. That never stuck. The fact is, you get elected through the process outlined in the Constitution. It's not like this is a surprise...the Electoral College system has been around since 1804, and there's been significant talk about it over the last few weeks. I don't think Bush is going to stop and say, "you know what..maybe I won't give a tax cut now" simply because he didn't carry the popular vote. Likewise, I certainly wouldn't expect Gore to do that if the shoe was on a different foot. ------------------
Maybe each state should have their governer vote to elect the president. One state, one vote. ------------------ Don't come in Bullard's house!
What is more interesting to me is that while many people predicted the electoral vote could end up the opposite of the popular vote, every single person who thought that thought that Bush would be the one winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote. What a weird election. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
OK,i`m gonna ask a dumb question but who are the people who make up the Electorial College? ------------------
Never mind that large, large portions of the country got zero attention specifically because there electoral vote was virtually guaranteed (which is the same thing as what is being presented as the horrible outcome of actually letting people truly vote), and there's still no point to saying "population centers" would get too much attention in a true (one person one vote) democracy. Every single vote would matter, not just the ones in the city. Would the cities get more attention? Yeah, there's more people there. What's the problem with the majority of people getting to elect their leaders? There's no real logical way around it. I'm pretty sure most of the country folk will have TV's and have access to a ton of election stuff anyway. As for Bush not being a victim of gridlock, well, that's rather naive. The majority in the house and senate are incredibly small to say the least. Politicians are out for their own skins and every except the Pres has to actually take into account what the majority of people would say when election time comes again. Any Republican that isn't in a total safe (pure repub) district/state isn't going to stick his neck out at all for a guy that most of the people voting didn't want there. They have to take the middle ground in most issues even if that's against the stated or promoted repub stance. That tax cut ain't happening, nothing is. ------------------
Electoral College - Made up of names submitted by the parties (for the most part names of people at the party convention). The parties submit the same number of names as electoral votes for a state. If gore wins the state then the democratic names submitted become the electoral college for that state. Thus guranteeing that party will get every single electoral vote. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
Actually, our founding fathers really thought the masses weren't smart enough to figure out who to vote for. There were many reasons for this, some of which they could never predict like mass media. In the 1800's, it was nearly impossible to get info to people at a moment's notice. It took days to get news from one city to another. As a result, the electoral college was created to help give those out of touch a voice in political elections. Our electorate is far more spread out now and has access to information via television, radio and the internet among other sources. We can educate ourselves. The EC did help to disperse voting but because this is a national election, what each state decides should not matter as much as what each voter decides. Those ballots have to be first and foremost. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
This is a very naive question too- But does family size have anyhting to do with this. I mean, i know the number of electoral college votes per state are according to population size. Does anyone see a relationship in states where there are more families,etc, with more of a population under the voting age, and the electoral college. Just wondering if that is a valid argument of any sort ------------------ Remember.... You are not really drunk until you must hold on to the grass to keep from falling off the earth.
yeah, cuz Delaware or Rhode Island should have the same say in deciding the president as New York or California. Ridiculous.
Yeah, but I've had to listen to Republicans for the last 8 years say this, so it will be nice, if Gore doesn't win, to say that Bush couldn't even win the popular vote, something Clinton did do twice. ------------------ "He was under more balls than a midget hooker."-Bobby Hill visit www.swirve.com
This is actually false and the main reason why the EC doesn't work. Mathematically, under the present system the small states could elect a president who only garnered 29% of the populate vote simply because the EC gives them a vote that is disproportional to their population. That is they carry significantly more weight than the EC votes of larger states. The reason that people want to keep the EC is because dismantling it would weaken the two-party system. The EC practically ensures that minor party candidates can't make a serious bid for the presidency because the EC is all or nothing. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
Pook, I think you just proved MadMax's point: the electoral college is designed to give less say to densely populated areas. Though, if you saw that map on TV last night with Gore collecting something like 8 (important) states, and Bush getting the other 40, you'll have to think twice about how good a job the EC does at defraying that dense-state influence. Though you do make a very good point about the 2-party system. As long as we have the electoral college, a third party won't carry a single state. The EC system is in the best interest of both Dems and Reps, so I don't think we'll see it changing -- which is a pity. ------------------ RealGM Rockets Draft Obligations Summary http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
