Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,124 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 56,657
Pageviews Today: 106,360Threads Today: 44Posts Today: 991
01:32 AM

Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
Subject ELECTORAL COLLEGE versus "Socialistic Hanky Panky"
User Name
Font color:  Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
Original Message When we vote, we are in fact voting for the electors that are pledged to the presidential candidate of our choice. It doesn’t matter the number of state electors pledged to a certain candidate on the Election 2008 Map. Why? The electors can change their pledge and vote otherwise. It matters what the electors say when they vote, AS THEY ARE ABLE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE IF THEY FEEL OUR CONSTITUTION IS ENDANGERED BY A POPULAR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

So, in effect, it doesn’t matter if ACORN, the liberal ABC news networks, the liberal polls, Hollywood money, the View, comedy skits, a deliberate manufactured economical mess or anyone or anything else is cheating and using poor judgment to win a popular vote for their candidate. THE ELECTORS ELECT THE PRESIDENT and keep America safe.


[link to www.usconstitution.net]

Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College

The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns the Electoral College. The Electoral College is embodied in the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, and in the 12th Amendment.

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.

Though the term is never used in the Constitution itself, the electors that choose the President at each election are traditionally called a College. In the context of the Constitution, the meaning of college is not that of a school, but of a group of people organized toward a common goal.

The Electoral College insulates the election of the President from the people by having the people elect not the person of the President, but the person of an Elector who is pledged to vote for a specific person for President. Though the ballot may read "John McCain" or "Barack Obama," you're really voting for "John Smith" who is a McCain supporter or "Jack Jones" who is an Obama supporter.

On election day, the people of each state cast their ballot for the president and vice president. But what they are really doing is voting for a slate of electors pledged to those candidates. The fact that the people vote at all is a matter of tradition and/or state law rather than constitutional law. The electors in a state may be appointed any way a state sees fit.

Once the votes have been counted, that candidate with the most votes gets all of the electors in that state with the exception of certain states. Electors may not be members of Congress or be in any other government position.

[link to www.archives.gov]

How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?

It is important to remember that the President is NOT CHOSEN BY A NATION-WIDE POPULAR VOTE. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals.

This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

OP: I personally think this happened because Gore and his party were tilting towards socialism.

Four times in US history – 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 – the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the White House because he had fewer votes in the Electoral College, which is based on the size of each state’s congressional delegation.

Didn't this also happen in 2004?
Pictures (click to insert)
 | Next Page >>