If the Electoral College chooses the President

If the Electoral College chooses the President - Why bother Voting ?, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 13-8-2011 @ 07:44 PM by easynow

If the Electoral College chooses the President - Why bother Voting ?

The Electoral College consists of the electors appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election.[1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, as opposed to a direct election by United State citizens.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Electoral College, administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is not a place. It is a process that began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote.

www.archives.gov...

Why should I vote in the general election (the popular vote) if my vote doesn't really matter or count ?

Maybe someone that knows more about this subject can explain how this process works ?

Thanks

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 07:52 PM by muzzleflash

Well, the delegates are supposed to vote in favor of their constituency. But, I wouldn't say that's how it works in real life.

For all realistic intents and purposes, your general assumption that the Electoral College is a type of mechanism to override the people's votes and usurp the system, you are partially correct.

There are other mechanisms to rigging voting systems, and the Electoral College is only one of those pathways.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:05 PM by eazyriderl_l

reply to post by easynow

Thats a good question. And in accordance with the Muzzleflash there are a few sets of checks and balances. The problem is as you see it, is the people involved. If there is influence from say a lobby, then you can effect the outcome of said "election" if you can influence a controlling majority... which is what i believe is happening or happened and some are still hiding

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:06 PM by cry93

Why vote?

Probably because the electoral college isn't some independent operating agency that does whatever it wants to do. Votes are what determines electoral college designations.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:08 PM by Dance4Life

Has there been a time in history where the EC doesn't vote in favor of the prevailing vote?

I would definitely be the first to do this for Ron Paul lol.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:20 PM by EagleTalonZ

reply to post by Dance4Life

In 2000, Gore won the Popular vote but Bush "won" the election.

Al Gore had 48% while Bush had 47%
Source I dunno how many times that has happened.

Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote? There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Source

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:22 PM by Dance4Life

reply to post by EagleTalonZ

Yeah, but I don't think any delegates went against the vote. Gore just won the popular vote. What I am saying is what happens if the EC chooses someone else? Like in your example, what would have happened instead of the EC going with Bush the specific states EC went with Gore?

As I understand it they aren't necessarily bound to do so.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:24 PM by Pervius

Originally posted by Dance4Life

Yeah, but I don't think any delegates went against the vote.

States don't have laws forcing the Electoral Votes to go to what the people picked.

The Electoral College picks who ever they want.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:29 PM by tkwasny

The original intent was if the voters in remote regions were unaware of ineligibility or "other wrongs" of the popular vote winning candidate, that there would be the path to stop the swearing in BASED ON CONSCIENCE of the delegates.

Instead the casters of the electoral college vote are but obligated mimicry. Besides, there are so few with content of character with conscience alive on planet Earth these days. Where is todays equivalent of the "high Jedi council"? Uncorruptable and answers only to the Truth from the "other side".

edit on 13-8-2011 by tkwasny because: typo fix

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:33 PM by kro32

I believe there has only been one time that the electorate has gone against the popular vote if I remember my history well enough.

When you cast your vote your actually voting for an elector and not the President. By voting for say Obama your voting for the elector who supports Obama and vise versa and thats how your vote translates into votes for the Presidential Candidate.

If you voted for the Obama elector he is free to cast his vote for whoever he wants but except under extreme condidtions he will vote for who he has pledged support for.

The founders of the Constitution basically thought you and I were too stupid to be trusted with the important decision of picking a President so they decided on this system where the electors would be able to use reason and common sense if the general populace got a hair up their butt and tried to vote for Snoopy or something.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 08:57 PM by EagleTalonZ

reply to post by kro32

And I'm guessing based on what you just said - that is the reason a 'write-in' would never become a President.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:00 PM by kro32

Originally posted by EagleTalonZ
reply to post by kro32

And I'm guessing based on what you just said - that is the reason a 'write-in' would never become a President.

Probably not. You have to figure if this person is a write in they obviously haven't done any work to even get on the ballot so I don't see why the electoral college would agree to vote for that person.

I'd say the chances are absolutely 0 that a write in would ever be elected.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:02 PM by matthewgraybeal

Why did you have to remind about the Electoral college....

I was all giddy and happy about Winning this year with my candidate.

I forgot about these shills, I disliked them from civics class when I was 15 years old and figured if a man could be bribed he would be.

bummer, if the electors fail again this year to acknowledge the people, I hope there is hell to pay.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:02 PM by cry93

reply to post by kro32

Or our Forefathers were intelligent enough to know that they didn't want any populous state to decided our president elect? The addition of the electoral college was giving power to the states as it addressed the right of the state to send their appropriate delegates/electors to cast a vote for the president, based on the will of its citizens.

Seriously, some of the people dogging the electoral college right now would have a fit if it was abolished next week and California, New York, and Illinois all basically reelected President Obama in 2012.

edit on 13-8-2011 by cry93 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:04 PM by kro32

Of course it was put in to make sure that the smaller States got equal representation but it was kind of hard to sneak in my Snoopy reference giving that explanation

Of course if anybody is really curious wiki can answer it for them in like 10 sec.

edit on 13-8-2011 by kro32 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:09 PM by sdcigarpig

Originally posted by Pervius

Originally posted by Dance4Life

Yeah, but I don't think any delegates went against the vote.

States don't have laws forcing the Electoral Votes to go to what the people picked.

The Electoral College picks who ever they want.

There are states that have laws on the books where the delegates for the Electoral college has to vote as the public pics. The problem is that most do not allow for splitting the votes, but a few do, and that trend is growing, where if 60 percent of the votes go for one guy and 40 percent goes for the other guy, then the votes are split. Most have it where the person who wins gets all of the votes.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:09 PM by easynow

I'm on the learning curve here on this subject so I appreciate everyones opinions and any information you have included.

If some of the electoral representatives are not legally obligated by State law or any Federal law to cast their vote that reflects the results of the popular vote then I'm thinking I am right back where I started and still left trying to understand why I should even bother voting.

From EagleTalonZ post...

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.

How could we find the information that tells us which States "require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote" and which States do not ? Anyone know ?

I think it would be interesting to see the breakdown and how each State differs on this ?

edit on 13-8-2011 by easynow because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:10 PM by AQuestion

reply to post by easynow

Dear easynow,

Why should I vote in the general election (the popular vote) if my vote doesn't really matter or count ? Maybe someone that knows more about this subject can explain how this process works ?

The electoral college as you quoted was a compromise. In England the legislators choose the Prime Minister, he is not elected by the people, he is the leader of his party. The founding fathers wanted more input by citizens so they created the electoral college. Each state gets a certain number of representatives based on the number of citizens and the mere fact that it is a state. This meant that the President was selected by the general consensus of the people of all the states and that the smaller states still had some say.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:30 PM by tooo many pills

What is even worse than that is we do not even choose the Democratic or Republican nominees that are running for the Presidency of the U.S.

The front runners are chosen for us at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. This is not our choice.

So, in reality we are just voting for either of the two candidates TPTB have chosen for us before we even get to election-day. And, then just to insure they get one of their top two choices in office, and We The People don't write in a 3rd party candidate, they have the electoral college divvy up the real votes. Whoever gets 270 Electoral College votes wins the Presidency. We The People have a vote, but it is basically meaningless as we aren’t really the ones deciding between the two candidates that have a chance at winning.

The American Democracy is an ILLUSION.

reply posted on 13-8-2011 @ 09:36 PM by easynow

reply to post by AQuestion

I understand the general idea and premise

The problem seems to be some electoral Reps are obligated to cast their vote which reflects the popular vote of their district but some Reps do not have to do that.

Is that line of thinking correct ?