19
19
0
RP members sometime suggest getting rid of the Electoral Collage and I caution that we should not destroy a thing without first understanding it. Well, here is one of the best explanations of the Electoral College that I've yet found. I hope it helps
Posted in these groups: 
Government
Election 2016
Government Election 2016
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
1
1
0
CPT Jack Durish
I still don't understand why states like California get so many electoral votes, if the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent one state from dominating.
I still don't understand why states like California get so many electoral votes, if the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent one state from dominating.
(1)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
PO1 John Miller - I don't follow what you are saying. In what case?
Just a note here - the electoral vote coincides with the number of representatives the state has in rhe House.
Just a note here - the electoral vote coincides with the number of representatives the state has in rhe House.
(0)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
Capt (Join to see)
Basically I'm saying that a state gets punished because it has fewer residents. Not only is that not fair, doesn't it go against what the EC is supposed to be all about?
Basically I'm saying that a state gets punished because it has fewer residents. Not only is that not fair, doesn't it go against what the EC is supposed to be all about?
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
What you are saying is wrong. The state with few residents is at least given some say so in our government. That is why congress and the electoral college was set up so that candidates at least have to know they are there.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Electoral College - Schoolhouse Rock - YouTube
The folks who brought you "Conjunction Junction" and "Interplanet Janet" and "Three is a Magic Number" and "I'm Just A Bill" made this.
this is easier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyIFqf3XH24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyIFqf3XH24
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
CPT Jack Durish I was under the impression that if enough states voted to abolish the Electoral College (a minimum of 270 votes between them), then it would happen. Is this not correct?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I found the video misleading. For one, had the Supreme Court not interfered in a State procedure, the recount would have gone to Gore, giving him the clear advantage in the Electoral College. It was Florida that decided the election, not West Virginia.
There have been 4 instances in our history where the winning President lost the popular vote, the last one being Pres. Bush in 2000.
It is possible to win the Electoral College by focusing on a few States. If you don't believe that, watch the candidates as they campaign. You will notice that there are States that are visited often, and some that are never visited. You will also notice that the States visited often have the most Electors.
Finally, it is never brought up in any discussion about the Electoral College, but the Electors are not, by Law, bound to vote for the Candidate they were selected to vote for. It is possible that an Elector could change his/her mind before the Electoral College meets to cast votes. So, we could see a mass defection of Electors change the outcome of the election. Has it ever happened? Not to my knowledge, but that does not eliminate the possibility of it happening in the future.
There have been 4 instances in our history where the winning President lost the popular vote, the last one being Pres. Bush in 2000.
It is possible to win the Electoral College by focusing on a few States. If you don't believe that, watch the candidates as they campaign. You will notice that there are States that are visited often, and some that are never visited. You will also notice that the States visited often have the most Electors.
Finally, it is never brought up in any discussion about the Electoral College, but the Electors are not, by Law, bound to vote for the Candidate they were selected to vote for. It is possible that an Elector could change his/her mind before the Electoral College meets to cast votes. So, we could see a mass defection of Electors change the outcome of the election. Has it ever happened? Not to my knowledge, but that does not eliminate the possibility of it happening in the future.
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
Capt (Join to see) - Actually the Court ordered the State to stop recounting and to accept the count that was in place, a clear violation of State law and an intrusion into the all important States Rights that Conservatives are always crying about.
And, as I recall, it was the Bush supporters that took the case to the Supreme Court to stop the re-counts, wanting to keep the original counts, and wanted the "Clear intent" only counted. I wonder if they would have been so adamant if the count was going the other way?
And, as I recall, it was the Bush supporters that took the case to the Supreme Court to stop the re-counts, wanting to keep the original counts, and wanted the "Clear intent" only counted. I wonder if they would have been so adamant if the count was going the other way?
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
And, they still would not open or count the absentee votes. I think you recall too much of the kool aid propagated by the losers.
(0)
(0)
SGT Edward Wilcox
The absentee ballots don't get counted until well after the election day ballots are counted. There was nothing in the case that had anything to do with the absentee ballots. Although it didn't count because of the Supreme Court decision, Florida still did complete the recount. Al Gore won, including the absentee ballots.
(0)
(0)
SSG Steve Niebergall
“Faithless electors” can be penalized for not voting according to their party’s ticket. Here’s a good article on the subject. http://time.com/4560682/faithless-electors/
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google