Tweedle
I REALLY NEED HELP!
when were popular votes broken in PAST elections? All i need is about 3 or 4. AND I DO NOT MEAN THIS YEARS ELECTION!!!!
A GOOD link earns 10pnts.
Answer
"The Electoral College process is part of the Constitution, so a change in this process requires a Constitutional Amendment. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ . You can contact your representatives in Congress regarding changing the Electoral College.
Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State. You're vote helps select your state's electors. Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent. In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.
Debates regarding the electoral college have been on-going over the years. For a debate giving reasons for and against the electoral college, see http://www.archives.gov/nae/news/featured-programs/electoral-college/ "
Legal Affairs and Policy staff
Office of the Federal Register
"The Electoral College process is part of the Constitution, so a change in this process requires a Constitutional Amendment. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ . You can contact your representatives in Congress regarding changing the Electoral College.
Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State. You're vote helps select your state's electors. Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent. In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.
Debates regarding the electoral college have been on-going over the years. For a debate giving reasons for and against the electoral college, see http://www.archives.gov/nae/news/featured-programs/electoral-college/ "
Legal Affairs and Policy staff
Office of the Federal Register
Libertarians: will you vote for Bob Barr for President?
teejaynile
His candidacy / intention to run if nominated at the National Political Convention is in today's news. . .What will he offer to about 5% of the nation's voters? Thanks for posting!
Answer
As a former Libertarian (I voted for Harry Browne in 1992 and in 1996), I don't see Bob Barr as being very popular with Libertarians. He seems waaaaay too conservative on social issues and not conservative enough on economic issues. They might nominate him like they did Ron Paul in 1988 because he is a "big name" (relatively speaking).
It should be interesting.
As a former Libertarian (I voted for Harry Browne in 1992 and in 1996), I don't see Bob Barr as being very popular with Libertarians. He seems waaaaay too conservative on social issues and not conservative enough on economic issues. They might nominate him like they did Ron Paul in 1988 because he is a "big name" (relatively speaking).
It should be interesting.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment