Each state gets one elector for each Representative or Senator, and the District of Columbia gets three, the same as the least populous state. (435+100+3 = 538) The number of representatives is determined based on the population of each state (according to the census), each state getting at least one, but the rest passed out based on population. So yes, it is based on population, but is not directly related to family size or age. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Gore may have had the most votes in the popular vote, but even if he wins, the country will still have a minority president. If Bush wins the electoral vote, the same is true. The majority of the people in this country who voted will not have voted for the man who is elected president. ------------------ - Beck Dream...bring back the goggles
Whereas now, they only campaign in states that they feel they have a likelyhood of winning/losing. I don't remember seeing Gore or Bush do much campaigning in Texas, for example. ------------------
Huh? It's still in a candidate's best interest to hit the small states, even if there is no EC ... Say both candidates are hitting it hard in Texas, New York, Florida and California ... so the vote is split between them in those states. Of course they will have to visit the smaller states to drum up enough votes everywhere. The votes in smaller states wouldn't be meaningless, just like their electoral votes now aren't meaningless. One vote is still one vote no matter where it is cast. Say the candidates ignore all the small states, but a third party candidate doesn't. It could be the beginning of a true multi party system ... ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
Here is an example (although extreme) showing why the electoral college is a good thing: Candidate A wins California by 6 million votes. Candidate B wins every other state and DC by 100,000 votes each. (total of 5 million over Candidate A) Candidate A wins the popular vote by 1 million votes. Do we really want a candidate as president that only 1 state prefers? ------------------
Just take a look at USA TODAY. They have a picture of all the counties won by Gore and by Bush. There is ALOT more Bush than Gore. Pretty cool map. ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
I don't see what states have to do with anything. If more people voted for Gore, then Gore has as much right as Bush for the presidency. That's like syaing Californians or Texans aren't as important. People live at these states for a reason. Maybe this may work better. Say, Bush wins 60 % of Texas vote, Gore wins 38 %. Bush gets 60 % of 32 votes, Gore receives 38 % of the 32. Tricky part comes in when we are talking about 60.3% vs. 38.4 or wahtever. System isn't perfect, I don't know what would be. ------------------ "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." George W. Bush
Dude, The reason that Bush won more countys than Gore, for example in Florida, is that rural areas tend to favor Republican while Metropolitan areas tend to favor Democrats. Population wise; 10 counties won by Bush wouldn't equal the one county won by Gore. Gr8-1, If we do that why would we need the electoral college? What happens when the vote is 35% to 65% and there are only two electoral votes? One last thing: If you can't tell which bubble goes with which name and are too stupid/proud to ask, you deserve to have your vote not count. ------------------ The truth is out there. [This message has been edited by Mulder (edited November 09, 2000).]
That's not true, because states with larger populations get more electoral votes... If you get rid of the electoral college, no candidate will EVER ever again go to places like North Dakota or Delaware... Why would you? Those votes would be next to meaningless.... ------------------ "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and STATISTICS..." - Mark Twain - Remember, A Vote For Nader Is A Vote For Bush... So VOTE FOR NADER
gr8-1, Here is my opinion on the electoral college. Each state is given a minimum of 3 electoral votes. States can "earn" more votes based on their population. That is why California, New York, Texas have so many vote. You knew that part. This system of giving each state a voice, but giving bigger states a bigger voice is a replica of how legislation is made and passed in the federal government. Each state has 2 senators, giving each state some voice. Each state is alotted house representatives based on their population. This way the larger states have a larger voice. Laws must be passed through both houses before geting to the president. The people elect these senators and representatives to vote for them on issues. We don't all go to the polls for each bill in Congress. Why would the laws be made using one system and the president be elected using another? If we use a system that gives consideration to each state as an individual entity in making national laws, why would we not do the same in electing national leaders? ------------------ - Beck Dream...bring back the goggles
