No wonder so many Americans don't vote!!

2

Comments

  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    It goes by the popular vote.
    if thats true how come Gore didnt win the election then, correct me if im wrong here but didnt he have more of the popular vote?
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    yield6 wrote:
    if thats true how come Gore didnt win the election then, correct me if im wrong here but didnt he have more of the popular vote?
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken. i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    MrSmith wrote:
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken. i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.
    thanks, thats what i thought.
  • ACCBootlegGoddess
    ACCBootlegGoddess Posts: 4,318
    MrSmith wrote:
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken. i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.


    Ohh didn't know about the other 3 occasions. Were they all in favour of the republicans or did the Dems benefit on one of those occasions?
    "Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
  • blondieblue227
    blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    Gimme Some Truth :)

    I told you I didn’t do well in government class. lol
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    MrSmith wrote:
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken.

    1824: John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson, (actually neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election went to the House of Representatives.)



    1876: Rutherford B. Hayes defeats Samuel J. Tilden


    1888: Grover Cleveland over Benjamin Harrison


    2000: George W. Bush defeats AL gore
    MrSmith wrote:
    i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.

    out his ass apparently :rolleyes:
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    ACCBootlegGoddess wrote:
    Ohh didn't know about the other 3 occasions. Were they all in favour of the republicans or did the Dems benefit on one of those occasions?
    i think it was three times total. the other two happened in the 1800s. both went republican, but the parties were a lot different then and could have gone the other way just as easily.

    (edit: oh i have been corrected it was 4 times)


    and anyway there is nothing remotely democratic about it. California only has about one electoral vote for every 660,000 residents, while Wyoming has an electoral vote for about every 170,000. so the vote from a citizen in Wyoming counts more. its outdated and stupid.
  • blondieblue227
    blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    'Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.'
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,296
    yield6 wrote:
    if thats true how come Gore didnt win the election then, correct me if im wrong here but didnt he have more of the popular vote?

    No, Bush had more popular votes in Florida. That is why the Florida electoral college went for Bush.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,296
    MrSmith wrote:
    its happened about 4 times if i'm not mistaken. i dont know what the hell bootlegger is talking about.

    Yes, you have to go back to 1888 to find time where the electoral college didn't pick the president. 120 years ago. 29 elections ago. 2000 was picked by the electoral college as it was decided that Bush had more Florida votes. Bitch about the Supreme Court, not the electoral college there.

    There is probably a 1% chance this year that the electoral college would not vote by the popular vote of each state.

    I guess I am clueless since I go by the reality of the last 120 years and the reality of today. When I posted I wasn't sure what happened in the 1800's, and figured there was probably was a time when the electoral college was jacked up. But you know what, it wasn't in my lifetime, and I'm going by today. You know, the here and now. But yeah, go back to 1888.
  • ACCBootlegGoddess
    ACCBootlegGoddess Posts: 4,318
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    No, Bush had more popular votes in Florida. That is why the Florida electoral college went for Bush.

    Ok there was a lot of controversy with the vote count in Florida in that election so I dunno that he would have won the popular vote...I doubt it.
    "Rock and roll is something that can't be quantified, sometimes it's not even something you hear, but FEEL!" - Bob Lefsetz
  • meme
    meme Posts: 4,695
    LikeAnOcean wrote:
    The idea behind the electoral college simplified..

    Pretend 51% of Americans move to California..

    There is a major disaster there that cause people to vote irrationally..

    they choose a moron president who promises them what they want, but completely fucks over the country. The other 49% are thinking rationally, but can't compete with the 51% freaked out Californians and in the end this moron president ends up fucking everyone because everyone in California freaked out..

    The electoral college creates balance..

    If that makes sense.

    I used to be against it as well, but it makes sense to me now. It basically adds balance to address issues that effect different regions evenly.

    Instead now we are just overrun by a minority of rednecks :D
    ... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    Yes, you have to go back to 1888 to find time where the electoral college didn't pick the president. 120 years ago. 29 elections ago. 2000 was picked by the electoral college as it was decided that Bush had more Florida votes. Bitch about the Supreme Court, not the electoral college there.

    There is probably a 1% chance this year that the electoral college would not vote by the popular vote of each state.

    I guess I am clueless since I go by the reality of the last 120 years and the reality of today. When I posted I wasn't sure what happened in the 1800's, and figured there was probably was a time when the electoral college was jacked up. But you know what, it wasn't in my lifetime, and I'm going by today. You know, the here and now. But yeah, go back to 1888.
    in other words you were wrong. as for 2000, if the electoral college didnt exist the supreme courts decision on who won florida would be irrelevant anyway, so i can still bitch about the electoral college there too.


    why cant it happen again? IT JUST HAPPENED! as in less than a decade ago, not over a hundred!
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,296
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    1. So we've gone tabloid on this board? Prove that he was banging her.

    2. The electoral college does not TEND to go by the popular vote. It goes by the popular vote.

    #2 above means that the electoral college votes according to the popular vote of each state. If the majority of Ohio votes for Bush, then Ohio votes 100% of its electoral college votes for Bush. That is why I stressesd the word "tend". They don't "tend" to vote by the popular vote, they do vote by the popular vote of each state.
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,296
    MrSmith wrote:
    in other words you were wrong. as for 2000, if the electoral college didnt exist the supreme courts decision on who won florida would be irrelevant anyway, so i can still bitch about the electoral college there too.

    why cant it happen again? IT JUST HAPPENED!

    See my post above. I think we misunderstood each other. I understand that Gore won the national popular vote. I thought the original poster was talking at the state level, but must have been talking about the national vote. It didn't make sense to me the first time because the electoral college would be meaningless if it always went by the national popular vote, so I assumed it was state level.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    bootlegger10 wrote:
    See my post above. I think we misunderstood each other. I understand that Gore won the national popular vote. I thought the original poster was talking at the state level, but must have been talking about the national vote.
    oh well as for whether or not it makes people stay home i'm not sure, but i can say i'm not super concerned with voting for prez since i live in Texas its going red. i'll probably get around to it.
  • blondieblue227
    blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    I hate being a blonde on chat boards sometimes!

    I’ve been reading.
    The electoral vote number is determined on how many reps you have in congress.
    The number of reps is determined by population.

    So…
    Where is the problem? I know there is one, I just don’t quite understand it.
    The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    blondieblue227 wrote:
    So…
    Where is the problem?
    The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?

    people who think "true democracy" is the answer don't like it.
    they want general mob rule.
    :cool:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    blondieblue227 wrote:
    I hate being a blonde on chat boards sometimes!

    I’ve been reading.
    The electoral vote number is determined on how many reps you have in congress.
    The number of reps is determined by population.

    So…
    Where is the problem? I know there is one, I just don’t quite understand it.
    The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?
    well mostly because the number of reps doesnt match up exactly with the population they represent. like in that example earlier Wisconsin has more reps per person than California (because every state no matter how small gets 2 senators), so they get more say. most of the time it doesnt matter, but every once in awhile it does.

    Gore got half a million more votes nationally than Bush! and I voted for Bush (just the first time!) and i still think its crazy!
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,296
    blondieblue227 wrote:
    I hate being a blonde on chat boards sometimes!

    I’ve been reading.
    The electoral vote number is determined on how many reps you have in congress.
    The number of reps is determined by population.

    So…
    Where is the problem? I know there is one, I just don’t quite understand it.
    The electoral vote number coincides with the population, so that means the electoral vote matches with the majority of the population’s choice, than what’s the problem?

    Say you have two states with 1,000,000 people in each. Each state has 5 electoral votes. State 1 votes for Bush with 550,000 votes, while voting for Gore with 450,000. State 2 has 1,000,000 votes for Gore, and zero for Bush. Under the electoral system, the candidates tie, even though Gore had almots three times as many votes as Bush.

    The problem people have is that it is not a popular vote at the national level, only at the state level. Like MrSmith said above, the electoral college ensures that each state can affect the outcome of the election.

Categories