Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
you're just assuming that to be the case based on the current political climate, and in any event, we're a republic.Going by state seems backwards; small states already have out-sized influence (in proportion to their population) in the electoral college. It seems strange that they also get to own the tie-breaker.
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.Anyone recall what happened in early July 92 to see Clinton surge in the polls and Perot disappear? Did Perot drop out and they all went to Clinton?
We're a democratic republic.you're just assuming that to be the case based on the current political climate, and in any event, we're a republic.
And? A republic nevertheless. it's a feature, not a defect.We're a democratic republic.
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.And? A republic nevertheless. it's a feature, not a defect.
it most certainly does.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.
Tarheel is really going to be disappointed to find out Wyoming has the same number of US Senators as 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
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."Tarheel is really going to be disappointed to find out Wyoming has the same number of US Senators as California.
If Trump were to win in any capacity it would start riots across the country...house vote or regular electoral college victory.So it would most likely go to Trump with the number of Red Stares? Oh Gawd that would start riots across the country. Especially if Biden had the most electoral votes.
That’s what I said.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!!!!!Going by state seems backwards; small states already have out-sized influence (in proportion to their population) in the electoral college. It seems strange that they also get to own the tie-breaker.
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'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.
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.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.
So the tyranny of the minority at the federal level but not at the state level, huh? Or do you endorse hyper-partisan gerrymandering?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.
Perot dropped out of the race suddenly.Anyone recall what happened in early July 92 to see Clinton surge in the polls and Perot disappear? Did Perot drop out and they all went to Clinton?
Europeans faced this same issue in trying to construct their confederation.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 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.So the tyranny of the minority at the federal level but not at the state level, huh? Or do you endorse hyper-partisan gerrymandering?
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?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.
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).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.
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.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?
LOL...the parliament in England dates back to the 13th century. Just stop - you clearly don't "understand" what you're talking about.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.
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".Pretty sure he’s blamed for Bush losing reelection to Clinton. Maybe I’m remembering wrong, but he definitely had an impact.
Bush was terribly unpopular by the end of his first term.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".
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.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".