3
3
0
Almost all of the States will have only one Presidential Candidate Winner represented in the U.S. Electoral College. Given the history of previous Elections, the two major political parties will have shop setup and Democrats are favored to win. This translates to the famous quote from the movie "Talledega Nights" which is "If you ain't First you're last- Reese Bobby". Too funny, basically proportionality of popular vote counts will not decide the next president.
Let's shine a light on the mysterious presidential election:
"What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?
The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state’s Electoral votes.
Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. "
Unless a candidate fails to reach 270 Electoral Votes in which the House would vote amongst the three top Electoral vote winners, so who would the House vote for?
Let's shine a light on the mysterious presidential election:
"What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?
The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state’s Electoral votes.
Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. "
Unless a candidate fails to reach 270 Electoral Votes in which the House would vote amongst the three top Electoral vote winners, so who would the House vote for?
U. S. Electoral College
Posted from archives.gov
Election 2016
Voting
Republicans
Democrats
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
5
5
0
Does your vote count? The Electoral College explained - Christina Greer
View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/does-your-vote-count-the-electoral-college-explained-christina-greer You vote, but then what? Discover how your i...
Two errors here. First it is not a forgone conclusion that Hillary already holds a lead in Electoral College Votes. She did a couple of weeks ago but that quickly evaporated when We the People were treated to evidence of her health issues that not even our lying eyes could hide. Whereas no one could see any possible path to victory for Trump, it is now possible. Secondly, the Electoral College system insures that the votes of all Americans count, that candidates can't simply pander to a few major population centers and ignore the interests of the vast majority of the nation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9H3gvnN468
(5)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Nice but she contradicts herself on the mass issue. The electoral vote keeps large states with tons of people from winning an election but then she turns around and says "winner takes all." Well isn't that the same thing? If the winner takes all electoral votes isn't that the same as the winner taking all popular votes? She also assumes (as do a lot of pro-electoral voter folks) that everyone in the entire state is going to vote a certain way. So every single Californian votes democrat every single time? There's not a single independent in that state? Or republican?
And then last, but not least, theres the question of faithless voters that she doesn't cover. Electoral voters that vote against "how they should vote" are referred to as "faithless voters." You'll notice that none go to jail or any other penalty. So basically, electoral voting is flawed.
And then last, but not least, theres the question of faithless voters that she doesn't cover. Electoral voters that vote against "how they should vote" are referred to as "faithless voters." You'll notice that none go to jail or any other penalty. So basically, electoral voting is flawed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google