skip to Main Content

Electing a US President in Plain English

Via

Dieser Beitrag hat 87 Kommentare
  1. „We need a way to account for the population of each state.“ and that’s why it was so much easier to just count the number of votes, especially since it’s possible to become president with less actual votes than another candidate in the current situation as 90% in a state or 51% in a state is equal…

  2. if a candidate wins your states electors then that would imply that the majority of the states population wants that certain candidate, so why not just count the populations vote instead of a electoral vote…please tell me if that makes sense, or am i just totally wrong …

  3. @gkglasgow np haha. Truthfully, i don’t properly understand the merits of a 2 party system. 1 aspect is that it provides a more clear picture of what the American people want. If there is a 40% majority between 3 parties, that means that 60% of the people DIDNT vote for the winning party. With this system, you get it so the majority of the overall population votes for the winning party. That’s just my take, this debate has gone on forever, and will likely go on forever.

  4. @gideonwolder26 and what exactly is so great about a 2 party system? and why aren’t nebraska and maine allowed to vote the president? and because the electors are basically the number of districts in a state that means that the most populated areas still have the most significance.

  5. @PsychoticSnake Because Nebraska and Maine award electors according to the proportion of the votes each candidate gets, instead of winner takes all. Thats how all the states should do it.

  6. This system is truly a stroke of genius. Without it, the country would be yanked around by the left and right coasts. It allows less populated areas to have some influence in Washington for their state. Only a bully or someone hoping to capatialize on fickle popular vote would think this system is unfair. If we loose the electoral college, the country would quickly become unrecognizable and harsh! It’s all about balance!

  7. why not nebraska and maine? nebraska and maine are fun. it’s not like ohio or arizona is better. bah. and what DO they do? do they do popular vote, or something else? surprise me, people.

  8. @adweb30 2 reasons.
    1: forces a 2 party system

    2. Direct voting would make candidates focus only on most populous areas. An incumbant would divert all resources to California and florida, so he could get their votes. But then all the other states would be left with nothing. This forces candidates to focus on less populated areas too.

  9. @danielharmonizer However, politics and economics are so intertwined that a nation’s economic system will likely have a major effect on its politics and vice versa. In the US for example, large businesses can have a major impact on political campaigns through their donations. Money doesn’t determine the winner but it definitely helps.

  10. I COME FROM TAIWAN(ROC),THAT COUNTRY CITIZENS MUST BE OLDER THAN 20 YEARS OLD THAN CAN ELECTING PRESIDENTS!SINCE ROC GOVERNMENT MOVED TO TAIWAN IN 1949,WE HAD 47 YEAR COULDN’T VOTED OUR LEADER MY OURSELVES!UNTIL 1996,TAIWANESE FINALLY CAN VOTING IN FREEDOM!NOW THE TAIWAN PRESIDENTS IS YING-JU MA,HE WILL SEEKS MORE 4 YEARS IN 2012,I HOPE HE CAN WIN THE ELECT!BY THE WAY,TAIWAN IS A TREASURE ISLAND,HOT SPRINGS AND NIGHT-MARKETS WILL MAKE YOU LIKE IN HEAVEN!SO MY FRIENDLY FOREIGNERS,WELCOME!

  11. The thing I hate most about the electoral college is the fact that districts are simply chosen by legislators so that votes in districts with unequal populations only count for about .8 rather than 1 vote due to the difference.

  12. @RMCrowley
    In the past there have been 3 or more candidates that won electoral votes. Consider 1968: Nixon (R) beat Humphrey (D) and Wallace (American Independent). Wallace, running on a segregationist platform, won 5 states in the deep south.
    Other elections with strong 3rd candidates were 1948, 1912, and several in the 1800s.

    Even today there are more than 2 choices: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, and the Socialist Party – all these were on the ballot as well in 2008.

  13. This goofy system of the Electoral College all started from the 18th century smaller states worried about being stomped & swallowed by bigger states.
    So our Founding Fathers slapped together the College to influence the smaller states to join in the Constitution. Personally, I think the smaller states were being dorks! I don’t see any reason to continue with the College.

    Also, the College usually corresponds with the popular count, except for two elections. One of them was 2000!

Kommentare sind geschlossen.

Back To Top