| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
-
Patrol -
Meet Batshit Amy -
That Bush!!!! -
Mine is The Faceles- -
this field cannot b- -
Those clever Brits -
Fucking Skyrim -
Time to Practice Yo- -
Dear Lord -
Clever Mark -
Religion =/= Peace -
Fist motherfucker ,- -
jeff and pete 6 -
I was high the othe- -
Well, My mind explo- -
Kawaii n' Shit -
mild entertainment -
Evil Teapot -
Dave -
Age
#9264
-
jokeface (09/23/2012) [-] I apologize for this, but I was a shitty student in high school and didn't pay attention because of reasons. Can someone explain to me how the electoral college works?
#9285 to #9264
-
Ruspanic (09/24/2012) [-] Basically when we vote for a Presidential candidate, we're actually voting for electors chosen by that candidate's party, who will in turn vote for the candidate in the Electoral College (though they're not legally required to). It used to be that the electors' names were actually on the ballot and people would vote for them directly, but that's not done anymore because ain't nobody got time fo' dat.
Each state has a certain number of electoral votes determined by the sum of their senators and representatives. This means the all states (plus D.C.) have at least 3 electoral votes (2 senators + at least 1 rep.). In 48/50 states, whichever candidate wins the popular vote gets all of the state's electoral votes* (in theory: a handful of times electors have not voted the way they were supposed to, but that's never influenced the outcome).
Ultimately the electors go to vote for one of the candidates. In order to become President, a candidate has to win at least 270 electoral votes. If none of the candidates do, the President is chosen by the House of Representatives.
However, because of the extra 2 votes given to every state and because of the way the finite number of votes are divided among the states, a state's electoral votes do not accurately reflect its population, and some populous states get a disproportionately small number of electoral votes relative to their population. Furthermore, because of the winner-take-all system, a state like California could give all of its 55 votes to one candidate, even if 49% of the state voted against him. This means that it is possible for someone to win the electoral college but lose the popular vote (like what happened in the 2000 election of George W. Bush, and 3 other times in American history).
Also American territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands) have no electoral votes, although they can vote in the presidential primaries.
Each state has a certain number of electoral votes determined by the sum of their senators and representatives. This means the all states (plus D.C.) have at least 3 electoral votes (2 senators + at least 1 rep.). In 48/50 states, whichever candidate wins the popular vote gets all of the state's electoral votes* (in theory: a handful of times electors have not voted the way they were supposed to, but that's never influenced the outcome).
Ultimately the electors go to vote for one of the candidates. In order to become President, a candidate has to win at least 270 electoral votes. If none of the candidates do, the President is chosen by the House of Representatives.
However, because of the extra 2 votes given to every state and because of the way the finite number of votes are divided among the states, a state's electoral votes do not accurately reflect its population, and some populous states get a disproportionately small number of electoral votes relative to their population. Furthermore, because of the winner-take-all system, a state like California could give all of its 55 votes to one candidate, even if 49% of the state voted against him. This means that it is possible for someone to win the electoral college but lose the popular vote (like what happened in the 2000 election of George W. Bush, and 3 other times in American history).
Also American territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands) have no electoral votes, although they can vote in the presidential primaries.
#9286 to #9285
-
Ruspanic (09/24/2012) [-] *In Nebraska and Maine, the winner of the popular vote gets 2 electoral votes (for the 2 senators) and each of the other votes are given to whoever wins the popular vote in each congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). Usually a candidate wins all of the electoral votes anyway, but in 2008 Nebraska split its electoral votes for the first time when Obama won in its the 2nd Congressional District (Omaha). The result was that Obama got 1 electoral vote, while McCain got 2 votes from the two other districts + 2 more for winning the overall popular vote.
#9267 to #9264
-
akkere (09/23/2012) [-] Common misconception is that it's a place where the real voting happens and they basically go "Fuck Everyone else who voted"
The primary purpose of the Electoral College (which is a process; not a place) is to implement equal power in States to prevent "Tyranny in Majority" basically.
Once the ballots have gotten in, they get forwarded to these specially selected people whom discuss the election and handle the votes, and thereby voting in accordance with the results.
Basically, if you have 2,000 people in one state and 75,000 in another, they're still going to be factored into the amount of people they have in their respective electoral college, which is counted by amount of Senators + Represenatives.
As previously mentioned before, they're supposed to vote by popular voting of the people, but some have been bound to pledges to vote for specific party, and more controversial moments have occurred where a voter has even voted against the popular vote.
I don't think it happens as much as people think it would, but it's not reassuring when you consider there's no law that goes against that sort of foul play.
The primary purpose of the Electoral College (which is a process; not a place) is to implement equal power in States to prevent "Tyranny in Majority" basically.
Once the ballots have gotten in, they get forwarded to these specially selected people whom discuss the election and handle the votes, and thereby voting in accordance with the results.
Basically, if you have 2,000 people in one state and 75,000 in another, they're still going to be factored into the amount of people they have in their respective electoral college, which is counted by amount of Senators + Represenatives.
As previously mentioned before, they're supposed to vote by popular voting of the people, but some have been bound to pledges to vote for specific party, and more controversial moments have occurred where a voter has even voted against the popular vote.
I don't think it happens as much as people think it would, but it's not reassuring when you consider there's no law that goes against that sort of foul play.
#9269 to #9267
-
jokeface (09/23/2012) [-] Damn. I don't like that. And I guess I'm like the billionth person to say that. Why would they implement such a controversial system? What's wrong with just the popular vote? Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be? Based on the popular vote?
Remember I'm politically retarded.
Remember I'm politically retarded.
#9272 to #9269
-
pokemonstheshiz (09/23/2012) [-] I just want to add that while they are supposed to choose the popular vote, they have to power to not do so if they think it's an unwise choice or something similar. They don't really ever do this, but they have the power.
The reason for the Electoral College is the reason we have Senators and Supreme Court Judges. We are purposefully a Democratic Republic because people don't have time or the will to look at all political issues. That's why we pick a senator to handle all the issues for us. He's supposed to listen to our opinions if we contact him about certain issues, but he's not required to. Same thing with the EC. The problem with it though, is it has to create a two party system since you have to win a majority rather than a plurality.
The reason for the Electoral College is the reason we have Senators and Supreme Court Judges. We are purposefully a Democratic Republic because people don't have time or the will to look at all political issues. That's why we pick a senator to handle all the issues for us. He's supposed to listen to our opinions if we contact him about certain issues, but he's not required to. Same thing with the EC. The problem with it though, is it has to create a two party system since you have to win a majority rather than a plurality.
#9271 to #9269
-
akkere (09/23/2012) [-] Don't doubt yourself so harshfully, it is a controversial system, but there's also this thing called "Tyranny of the Majority" that pretty much defines the reason we even have this process anyway, and why popular vote specifically wouldn't work.
I suppose the Electoral College is an attempt at ensuring Democracy without Tyranny of the Majority and maintaining a balance of location (although the folks in the Civil War might disagree with me), and to an extent it would be the most ideal. Except it's terribly managed with the fact that there's no law saying "Hey man, hey, what are you doing, you're supposed to vote for the other guy - what are you doing - DUDE, STAHP"
It's one of those "far from perfect, but better than nothing" I suppose.
I suppose the Electoral College is an attempt at ensuring Democracy without Tyranny of the Majority and maintaining a balance of location (although the folks in the Civil War might disagree with me), and to an extent it would be the most ideal. Except it's terribly managed with the fact that there's no law saying "Hey man, hey, what are you doing, you're supposed to vote for the other guy - what are you doing - DUDE, STAHP"
It's one of those "far from perfect, but better than nothing" I suppose.
