Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/14/2004 7:39:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:40:25 AM EST
hehe I love that article

I send anyone who talks about changing the EC system there.

Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:45:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:
When you cast your vote this month, you're not directly electing the president—you're electing members of the electoral college. They elect the president. An archaic, unnecessary system? Mathematics shows, says one concerned American, that by giving your vote to another, you're ensuring the future of our democracy.




Democracy?

Shit, I thought we lived in a Republic!
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:47:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By brasspile:
This month many of us are playing our allotted role in the drama that’s haunted Natapoff for so long. Ostensibly, by voting on November 5, we are choosing the next president of the United States. Nine weeks after the apparent winner celebrates victory, however, Congress will count not our votes but those of 538 "electors," distributed proportionally among the states. Each state gets as many electoral votes as it has seats in Congress--California has 54, New York has 33, the seven least populated states have 3 each; the District of Columbia also has 3. These 538 votes actually elect the president. And the electors who cast them don’t always choose the popular-vote winner. In 1888, the classic example, Grover Cleveland got 48.6 percent of the popular vote versus Benjamin Harrison’s 47.9 percent. Cleveland won by 100,456 votes. But the electors chose Harrison, overwhelmingly (233 to 168). They were not acting perversely. According to the rules laid out in the Constitution, Harrison was the winner.




Who writes this crap?
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:53:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:58:58 AM EST
jblachly

This article about the electoral college originally appeared in the November 1996 issue of Discover.

Its a reprint from 1996, when the election was on 5 Nov.

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 8:03:24 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2004 8:04:09 AM EST by brasspile]
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 8:06:56 AM EST
There is only one (debateble) thing wrong with the EC. That is all the states with winner take all. It was SUPPOSED to be proportional (and really it was intended to be neither, electors are supposed to be free to use their judgement as to who the best canidate is. They are not expected to waste their vote on a canidate that cannot win, they are SUPPOSED to horse trade)
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 8:10:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 8:11:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By jblachly:

Originally Posted By brasspile:
This month many of us are playing our allotted role in the drama that’s haunted Natapoff for so long. Ostensibly, by voting on November 5, we are choosing the next president of the United States. Nine weeks after the apparent winner celebrates victory, however, Congress will count not our votes but those of 538 "electors," distributed proportionally among the states. Each state gets as many electoral votes as it has seats in Congress--California has 54, New York has 33, the seven least populated states have 3 each; the District of Columbia also has 3. These 538 votes actually elect the president. And the electors who cast them don’t always choose the popular-vote winner. In 1888, the classic example, Grover Cleveland got 48.6 percent of the popular vote versus Benjamin Harrison’s 47.9 percent. Cleveland won by 100,456 votes. But the electors chose Harrison, overwhelmingly (233 to 168). They were not acting perversely. According to the rules laid out in the Constitution, Harrison was the winner.




Who writes this crap?



Someone needs to learn to read better:



This article about the electoral college originally appeared in the November 1996 issue of Discover. Some of our readers thought it would be a good idea to feature it again this election year. We agree.

Link Posted: 10/14/2004 8:14:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 12:27:39 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 1:29:17 PM EST
Alright alright I skipped the editors' note, so sue me
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:05:09 PM EST
Top Top