|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 6, 2004 16:00:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 7, 2004 9:35:42 GMT -5
I scrolled down enough to see the comments about direct democracy. IM (ntb) HO, direct democracy (aka mob rule) doesn't work. That's why we have a representative repbulic, for which I am thankful.
I know you'll probably b**** slap me for bringing this up, but whenever I think about the EC I think about the Clintons. Bill was elected twice through the EC without a majority vote (which couldn't have happened in a direct democracy) but when the debacle over the 2000 election happened, Hillary was positively shrill in her demands that the EC be done away with as obselete. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!
What are your thoughts on this most timely of topics?
Blessings,
LJ
|
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 7, 2004 11:30:02 GMT -5
I never gave it much thought and never really considered the purpose of the EC. My (uneducated) thoughts were that every vote should count, though now I see the ideas behind having the EC (not just because of 'ignorant' citizens, which is the only reason I remember hearing in school).
I would need to know more on how the different states divide up their votes, looks like some by county or district, and others are all to the winner. That would be interesting to see different plans for dividing up how a state would vote. I'm in Ohio (been all my life), and it looks like we're one of the more important swing states in this election - think of the drama if they could split our EC votes (which I guess the actual guy in the EC could do, but anyways).
And I didn't know Clinton won because of the EC, does that mean he lost the popular vote? Interesting to have two presidents in a row who lost popular and won. One of the predictions I heard for this election (given how close it is) is that Bush (who lost popular, but won EC) may end up winning popular this time and losing the EC. What's a better definition of irony?
|
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jul 7, 2004 20:59:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 8, 2004 7:54:20 GMT -5
Traf,
I didn't say "popular" I said "majority." Clinton won more votes than the other two candidates, but he didn't win 50% of the votes.
The thing to keep in mind re: EC is that STATES elect presidents, people don't.
MS, you bring up a good point when you say:
I think Civics education these days (and dating back to when I was in school 100 years ago) is very poorly taught so it's understandable that most voters under the age of 45 really don't understand the EC or how and why it works. Consequently we end up with people nodding in ignorant (in the non-pejorative sense) agreement when someone (usually the loser) starts wailing about the EC. Alas.
Now that's one I hadn't heard. Wouldn't that be bizarre? The latest prediction I came across was that the election would be a landslide either way. Oooh, I can't wait until November 2nd! I stay up with my popcorn and wine all night until Hawaii returns come in. Whether or not my side wins, I find the whole thing so fascinating... it's my favorite bi-annual event! (Okay, I know this makes me a major dork but what can I say?)
From the Federal Elections Comission site: (having recently moved to Nebraska, I found this interesting)
Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].
Wee! Even more reason to stay up! A vested interest!
Blessings,
LJ
|
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 8, 2004 13:04:45 GMT -5
Nice post.
And then of course, there is the (slim) possibility that an Elector will change his vote (I believe that's happened once).
Heh - and you stay up all night, huh? I've been out of town for the past two elections, so I'm usually just rotting away in a hotel room. Fun times.
Hope the suspense keeps ya going....
|
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jul 8, 2004 14:04:33 GMT -5
LauraJean - "I didn't say 'popular' I said 'majority.' Clinton won more votes than the other two candidates, but he didn't win 50% of the votes."
Neither did Kennedy or Nixon... the difference between Clinton and Bush II is that Clinton got more votes than anybody else in both elections and won, Bush II couldn't even do that much and still won. There's no hypocrisy at all in Hillary Clinton's statements, she has a valid point.
--BDT
1:4:9
|
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 19, 2004 11:03:11 GMT -5
LauraJean - Sorry, but Clinton won the popular vote in both elections. National Elections Online--TDv2.0 Only about half of the voting population voted in both elections Clinton won.
The truth is he was elected by about 25% of the voting public, but not the actual votes that were cast.
50% of the people didn't even show up to vote. [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jul 19, 2004 12:49:00 GMT -5
genesda - "Only about half of the voting population voted in both elections Clinton won."
That's the fun thing about the way elections work - your voice only counts if you show up.
--BDT
1:4:9
|
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Jul 19, 2004 13:17:31 GMT -5
genesda - "Only about half of the voting population voted in both elections Clinton won."That's the fun thing about the way elections work - your voice only counts if you show up. --BDT 1:4:9 You don't say....  |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 21, 2004 7:03:46 GMT -5
genesda - "Only about half of the voting population voted in both elections Clinton won."That's the fun thing about the way elections work - your voice only counts if you show up. Right, and this shows that Clinton won a majority of those that showed up, not a majority of registered voters.
Clinton was elected president twice by about 25% of the registered voters. [/color] |
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 21, 2004 8:00:51 GMT -5
Right, and this shows that Clinton won a majority of those that showed up, not a majority of registered voters. [/b][/color][/quote] Technically, this is not correct. Clinton received 49% and 48% of the vote in his two elections which is not a majority even of the people who showed up. TD pointed out that, interestingly, this was also true for Kennedy and Nixon which I didn't know before. Blessings, LJ |
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 21, 2004 8:05:59 GMT -5
Technically, this is not correct. Clinton received 49% and 48% of the vote in his two elections which is not a majority even of the people who showed up. TD pointed out that, interestingly, this was also true for Kennedy and Nixon which I didn't know before. Blessings, LJ 49% can't win an election unless there is a third person in the race. He did in fact receive the majority of votes from those who showed up.
He didn't win with 50% or more, but he certainly did receive the largest portion of the votes or majority or he wouldn't have been elected.
[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Jul 21, 2004 8:34:48 GMT -5
Technically, this is not correct. Clinton received 49% and 48% of the vote in his two elections which is not a majority even of the people who showed up. TD pointed out that, interestingly, this was also true for Kennedy and Nixon which I didn't know before. Blessings, LJ 49% can't win an election unless there is a third person in the race. He did in fact receive the majority of votes from those who showed up.
He didn't win with 50% or more, but he certainly did receive the largest portion of the votes or majority or he wouldn't have been elected.
[/color][/quote] Gene, Gene, Gene.... (I told you I was being technical) Main Entry: ma·jor·i·ty Pronunciation: m&-'jor-&-tE, -'jär- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties ...3 a : a number greater than half of a total ... A majority is defined as (at least) 50% plus one. Clinton (and Kennedy and Nixon, according to TD) won a plurality. Main Entry: plu·ral·i·ty Pronunciation: plu-'ra-l&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties 3 a : a number greater than another b : an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate c : a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast The two words do not mean the same thing. Peace! LJ |
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Jul 21, 2004 9:44:57 GMT -5
genesda - "Only about half of the voting population voted in both elections Clinton won."That's the fun thing about the way elections work - your voice only counts if you show up. --BDT 1:4:9 unfortunately for those that couldn't show up and filed absentee ballots -- their votes were not heard either. can't remember the count but there were thousands of military folks on deployment - theirs didn't count either. funny thing about being overseeas -- their mail is not postmarked as it's "free". so since no mark, they didn't count! Thank God the ships being deployed now have a special "mail" person on board to ensure that this year - their votes will be counted. |
|
