Electoral College Experts
- Thread starter AreWeCross
- Start date
Another fun fact!!!Seen this dog and pony show before. Because one elector made a mistake.
1800 United States presidential election - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The interesting thing is that each state only got one vote, not the number of reps each state has.
My long distant uncle, Samuel Miles, was the first faithless elector in the 1796 election.
Per wiki...
Miles also is noted as being the first faithless elector, when he was pledged to vote for Federalist presidential candidate John Adams, but instead cast his vote for Republican candidate Thomas Jefferson. This was the first contested election in USA and an angry voter wrote to the Gazette of the United States, "What! Do I chuse Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be President? No! I chuse him to act, not to think!" Miles cast his other presidential vote as pledged for Thomas Pinckney.
you're just assuming that to be the case based on the current political climate, and in any event, we're a republic.
Yup. It puts the lie to the claim that Perot cost Bush the election. Very little of the Perot support - if any - went to Bush when Perot dropped out. Ross returning to the race, prevented Clinton from achieving an even larger win.
And? A republic nevertheless. it's a feature, not a defect.
And? We're a democracy, nevertheless. Being a "republic" has nothing to do with allowing a few hundred thousand in Wyoming to have the same say in a presidential election as tens of millions in California.
it most certainly does.
First of all, a republic, by definition, is a representative democracy. I am certainly not questioning the role of democratic elections in our polity.
Second, 1865 notwithstanding, we are still a federal system. Surely, less of one, but federal nonetheless, and this is one of the many aspects of that, again, for good reason. It has never been the design of our system that California (or Virginia, or New York, or Illinois, or perhaps in the future, Texas) controls the election.
Third, again with the t-axis. Once upon a time, California had no say in things, nor did Wyoming
Tarheel is really going to be disappointed to find out Wyoming has the same number of US Senators as California.
I'm not the least "disappointed". I can recognize the stupidity of the system, however. you can't value the vote of any single person and then say, "Yes, but THAT vote counts thousands of times more than yours does."
But valuing peoples' votes isn't really your strong suit.
If Trump were to win in any capacity it would start riots across the country...house vote or regular electoral college victory.
Won't happen though. Trump will gain zero new voters next election and the anti-trump vote will be at least as strong if not stronger
Agree!!!!!
No way in hell States like Wyoming, Montana, and the Dakotas should have equal influence as States like Texas, Illinois, Florida, Cali, or New York.
It's only a stupid system if you ignore the reason for it, and believe in a massive federal government, which the founders wanted to avoid.
I value people's votes to the point I don't want them diluted through fraud.
I value people's votes at the state and local level because that's where the emphasis should be in our system.
Indeed, and if there were ever an era where we should ALL (on both sides) be cognizant of the dangers of majority tyranny, we're living in it.
So the tyranny of the minority at the federal level but not at the state level, huh? Or do you endorse hyper-partisan gerrymandering?
Europeans faced this same issue in trying to construct their confederation.
Imagine the temerity of Luxembourg demanding equal power sharing with France or Germany, and without any slave system to protect back home!
It’s almost as if the people of small states are jealous of their sovereignty, and yield it conditionally.
It's not worth discussing if you don't understand the notion that POTUS is elected by states, not people. Government closest to the people is always better than a strong federal government. That will give you better democracy because what is good for NY or NC doesn't always work in FL or TX.
It took an amendment to have Senators elected by the people, and that was only because the backroom deals in various states got out of hand.
Why
Do you think that disagreeing with the way something is done means it's not understood? Seems to be a theme. And you didn't answer the question. Did you not understand?
I think it was foremost to reduce the power of states over the federal government while simultaneously raising the power of parties over same (and thereby everything).
I'm under no obligation to answer questions that lead nowhere. You say the system is stupid. It's the best system in the history of the world, and has stood the test of time where the world has changed exponentially during that time. The results suggest it's not stupid at all.
LOL...the parliament in England dates back to the 13th century. Just stop - you clearly don't "understand" what you're talking about.
No, you're correct. If Perot hadn't been in the fight, the election would have gone to Sr, and the world would never have known how to define the word "is".
Bush was terribly unpopular by the end of his first term.
The gulf war euphoria was long from Feb ‘91 to Nov ‘92.
Bush's job approval rating sunk to the lowest point of his presidency, 29%, in July 1992, after Clinton and his party's leaders focused their message on the poor state of the economy at the well-received Democratic National Convention.
In slightly more than a year's time, Bush had gone from having the highest job approval rating to one of the lowest Gallup has measured, only slightly better than the readings in the mid- to low 20s Harry Truman and Richard Nixon received at the end of their presidencies.
Bush had a bump in job approval ratings to 38% after the Republican Party's convention in August, but faltered again in October. His final pre-election approval rating was 34% in late October, before losing the election to Clinton.
Incorrect. Perot leaving and reentering the race didn't budge Bush's numbers. After Perot dropped out, Clinton's numbers skyrocketed. When Perot came back, he siphoned off Clinton's numbers - not Bush's.
