Follow
Donate to HeyBucket.com - Amount:

Welcome Anonymous !

Your Fastpitch Softball Bible
 

The Pub

Posted Yesterday re: Electoral Vote

Off topic. Home for jokes and other misc. stuff.
Keep it reasonable.

by bart16761 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:53 am

I saw a post either yesterday or the day before by one of you inteligent guys that explained how the electoral system works. After my 15 year old got over the shock of tuesday results... she wanted to discuss the electoral vote/popular vote. I muddled my way through it but the explanation I read on here was very good and better than mine, can someone send me the link to that topic I can't find it.

Thanks
bart16761
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:45 pm

by jonriv » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:59 am

Each state gets electoral votes base on the # of reps + senators(this is changed every ten years based on census info). Popular election actually elects "electors" who then cast their vote accordingly- electors are not rquired to vote the way they were elected(there have been a few cases of "rogue" electors. All states have a "winner takes all" except Maine and Nebraska.

To change this system would take a Constitutional Ammendment- one which most small states would not agree on(would diminish their influence)
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by ontheblack » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:13 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... ted_States)

In a nutshell, each state has its own slate of electors who vote for the President and VP. The number of electors is equivalent to the number of congressional representatives. The census determines the number of House representatives for each. In most cases, the popular vote of the state results in a winner take all scenario of electoral votes. The two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, where the electoral votes are based on congressional districts. That is why Tuesday evening, newscasts gave progressive counts for those two states.

The House announces the winners on Jan 6th. If there is a tie in the electoral vote, the House votes on President and the Senate votes on the VP. That is overly simplistic, but close enough.

Makes me happy to hear teenagers asking about government. My kid has a few friends who just parrot the sound bites they hear, with no real clue.
User avatar
ontheblack
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:27 pm

by bart16761 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:25 am

Thanks guys i appreciate it.
I was also impressed that she asked about this she is a very good student and is always in a tiff with the liberal kids at school talking politics, religion, moral values, makes me proud she has an opinion at this young age and is not afraid to talk about it for risk of not being popular.
She is typically the smallest kid on the field with the biggest opinion, what college will look at her for that? :D
bart16761
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:45 pm

by ontheblack » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:34 am

The premise that a popular vote would have given the WH to Gore is flawed.

These days the election comes down to a dozen swing states. The map in the link below demonstrates how a handful of states dictate how campaigns are run and money spent (in California, less than a penny per vote. In Nevada, over $5 per vote):

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... d-by-money

After Bush was asked about winning the Presidency while losing the popular vote, he said, "Well, first, had I thought the campaign was--the candidate who won the most votes would be the president, I would have campaigned differently. For example, I might have spent a little more time and a little more time in my own state of Texas trying to maximize the popular vote. But I campaigned as if the one who got the most electoral votes would become the president."

Another time he compared it to a football game and it is the one who scores the most points vs gained the most yards.

This election was determined by less than 250,000 votes in 6 states.
User avatar
ontheblack
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:27 pm

by jonriv » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:20 pm

Spazsdad wrote:I heard that Romney received 3M less Republican votes than Mc Cain. If true why would the Republicans come out in less numbers this time than last. If those same people voted the same way as last time we would be in a much better place today.



Depends what states they were in
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by PDad » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:09 pm

jonriv wrote:
Spazsdad wrote:I heard that Romney received 3M less Republican votes than Mc Cain. If true why would the Republicans come out in less numbers this time than last. If those same people voted the same way as last time we would be in a much better place today.

Depends what states they were in

True, the only states that mattered were the swing states.

I suspect some evangelicals abstained from voting for Romney because he's a Mormon.
User avatar
PDad
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 3439
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:52 pm

by jonriv » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:14 pm

PDad wrote:
jonriv wrote:
Spazsdad wrote:I heard that Romney received 3M less Republican votes than Mc Cain. If true why would the Republicans come out in less numbers this time than last. If those same people voted the same way as last time we would be in a much better place today.

Depends what states they were in

True, the only states that mattered were the swing states.

I suspect some evangelicals abstained from voting for Romney because he's a Mormon.


Brilliant- there's a real myopic view.

I really wish the republican party will see the big picture and stop allowing the party to be hijacked by the evangelicals and the tea party- they scare the crap out of moderates and scare them into not voting or voting the other way. Can't make changes if you are not in power
User avatar
jonriv
 
Posts: 4875
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:01 am
Location: Connecticut

by ontheblack » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:55 pm

Spazsdad wrote:I heard that Romney received 3M less Republican votes than Mc Cain. If true why would the Republicans come out in less numbers this time than last. If those same people voted the same way as last time we would be in a much better place today.


Close to 3 million less votes. No way of knowing how many were Republican. By contrast, Obama received almost 9 million less votes. What we need to do instead of spending $1 billion on ads is to relocate 250k California GOP voters to 6 swing states. Throw in 50-60k from Texas for good measure and problem solved.

So who volunteers to move to Cleveland for the greater good?
User avatar
ontheblack
 
Posts: 2355
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:27 pm

by fastpitchdad05 » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:20 pm

ontheblack wrote:
Spazsdad wrote:I heard that Romney received 3M less Republican votes than Mc Cain. If true why would the Republicans come out in less numbers this time than last. If those same people voted the same way as last time we would be in a much better place today.


Close to 3 million less votes. No way of knowing how many were Republican. By contrast, Obama received almost 9 million less votes. What we need to do instead of spending $1 billion on ads is to relocate 250k California GOP voters to 6 swing states. Throw in 50-60k from Texas for good measure and problem solved.

So who volunteers to move to Cleveland for the greater good?


No thanks...I was born in Youngstown and I'm not going back! :lol:
User avatar
fastpitchdad05
Premium Member
Premium Member
 
Posts: 2115
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:43 pm

Next

Return to The Pub