presidential election in USA

[AcrobatMan]

I am confused how it happens.

1) Bush, Kerry and Nadir ( is there someone else) goes to poll in all states of America. Suppose there are 40 states ( howmany are there anyway). So if Kerry wins in 21 states and Bush wins in 19 states, Kerry wins..right !!

2) How are the other members of white house elected. When is the election for it ?

I suppose November 2 is the voting date. By what time (GMT) would the result be announced ?

Yes Im getting excited..

I will ask you further question as I get the answers

AcrobatMan
ps: tried to search this on google..but didnt help much.

 

[verte76]

It's not a numerical total of states that gets someone elected President. It's a little more complicated than that. We have something called "electoral votes". Each state has a certain number of "electoral" votes. For example, my state, Alabama, has 9 Electoral Votes. Bush will carry this state on Election Day. Other states have more. California has the most with 54, and other states with more than 20 electoral votes include Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and New York. When they've counted the states each candidates "carried"--got the most votes in--and add them up, whoever has 270 votes or more wins. It's really a toss-up at this point. Many important states, like Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and others are very close right now and none of the polls give either candidate a lead outside the margin for error. Bush has most of the Southern states in his corner; Kerry has California and most of the Northeast. It's whoever gets 270 Electoral Votes or more who wins. It's 270 because the total number of Electoral Votes is 538 and 270 is the majority. May the best man win!

 

[AcrobatMan]

my state, Alabama, has 9 Electoral Votes.

so that mean - there are 9 zones in alabama where approximately 1/9th alabamian will go and vote...

assuming population USA = 300 million
and 200 million eligible voter

means 1 electoral SEAT will have 200/538 = 0.37 million people...
may be half of them turn up...

so 200 thousand people will decide one electoral SEAT.... in alabama...

is this approximately ( even grossly) correct


how are the other members of white house elected apart from mr president

 

[hiphop]

They are not directly democratically elected. The Prez decides for his staff.

 

[AcrobatMan]

They are not directly democratically elected. The Prez decides for his staff.

so everyone except the president is not elected by the people.

does the people know that when this guy becomes the president..... this guy will become Vice president..this guy will be in defence...and this guy in finance...

 

[hiphop]

In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the electoral votes. By forcing residents in each state ultimately to vote as a block, the system is supposed to ensure that small states' interests are not drowned out by those of larger states.

In all, there are 538 electoral votes and the number given to each state reflects the sum of the representatives and senators it sends to Congress. It takes 270 or more electoral college votes to win the election.The biggest states - California (54), New York (33), Texas (32), Pennsylvania (23) - have the most impact on the result of the presidential election.

Usually, the result is nearly the same as it would have been if the election were direct. Yet the system has produced presidents who received a minority of the popular vote but a majority of the electoral votes, including Harry S Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams.

President Bill Clinton was also elected in 1992 with only 43 percent of the popular vote, but 370 electoral votes. Several times in recent electoral college history, a relatively small shift in voter preference in key states would have reversed election outcomes.

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/electorl.htm


Questions:

Isn´t it kind of unfair that the winner takes it all?

Isn´t it kind of less democratic than direct voting?

 

[hiphop]

so everyone except the president is not elected by the people.

does the people know that when this guy becomes the president..... this guy will become Vice president..this guy will be in defence...and this guy in finance...

I think they don´t know all the cabinet, but they know a part of it. Like, you got Kerry and Edwards. I think if Kerry wins Edwards will be Vice.

But probably it would be best if Americans would answer that question, because they are more familiar with their system.

 

[AcrobatMan]

thanks for the link..

i have lot of doubts still...

>>In each state, whichever party garners a majority of popular >>votes, regardless of how narrow the margin, wins all the >>electoral votes.

suppose in california - bush wins 30 and kerry 24 electoral seats...

will that mean bush gets all the 54 electoral SEATS

any more links would be appreciated

 

[AcrobatMan]

americans wake up late ..its 10 o clock at salt lake city

 

[hiphop]

suppose in california - bush wins 30 and kerry 24 electoral seats...

will that mean bush gets all the 54 electoral SEATS

That´s exactly what it means.

Imo, it´s kind of disregarding the 24 other seats, kind of telling millions of voters that their vote was useless. But you know, the Americans have to know what kind of system they want.. I´m sure they would have changed it if it bothered them at all.

I am all for direct voting, but I´m not American, so it´s not really my business. It´s just weird Europeans are used to direct voting, where every person counts and all is added and the majority means the majority of the voters, not the majority of the electoral seats.

 

[AcrobatMan]

That´s exactly what it means.

little weird to me..

now i know how Bill Clinton got elected..

with 43% of 538 electoral votes and still more than 50% of 538

interesting!!

 

[nbcrusader]

Questions:

Isn´t it kind of unfair that the winner takes it all?

Isn´t it kind of less democratic than direct voting?

It is only a hybrid winner take all - electoral votes still need to be acquired across many states to win.

The structure of the US governement is designed to give balance between citizen based power and state based power. Hence the two house of Congress - one giving more power to states with more people (citizen-based) and one giving equal power to all states (state-based power).

The Electoral College is designed to prevent a small area of the country with extremely large population drown out the voices of the other states with lower levels of population.

A history of the Electoral College can be found here

 

[AcrobatMan]

Imo, it´s kind of disregarding the 24 other seats, kind of telling millions of voters that their vote was useless. But you know, the Americans have to know what kind of system they want.. I´m sure they would have changed it if it bothered them at all.

suppose u had the real electoral seats then anyway you would disregard votes for people voting for a losing candidate in a electoral seat.

so although a guy win by slim at some electoral seat and loss by massive vote..it doesnt matter..... assume replubicans win by 1% margin at 271 electoral seats across the states...but at places where they loss ..u dont even get a vote....so effectively you got only 25% real votes and you got 271 seats..and the one with 75% votes lost and they get 269...doesnt seem to add to the total..but anyway...assume there were 540 seats

This present system is just taking this to the next level...ie the state level which I think is FAIR enough...

 

[hiphop]

Yeah, like I said, it´s the choice of the American voters. Imo, a system is only balanced and fair if you got, say roughly, 200 millions of voters, you count all the votes, and whoever has more than 100 million takes the majority. Simple and effective. Direct democracy.

 

[nbcrusader]

Direct democracy probably works best when you have a smaller, cohesive populous. In a larger, regionally diverse country, direct democracy could leave areas of the country with smaller populations without a voice.

 

[hiphop]

Yeah, so Nevada would have less voting power than California. Same like now, isn´t it?

How is the number of electoral votes of a state calcuted? Isn´t it proportional to the population?

 

[verte76]

Actually some people want to abolish the Electoral College. If I had my way in the matter the Electoral College would be history. Personally, I would prefer that the President be elected by the popular vote. However, some people think the smaller or more sparsely populated states, like Wyoming, for example, would get screwed if they were not guaranteed at least three electoral votes, thus, the Electoral College still exists. It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Americans are cautious voters and don't vote to approve many constitutional amendments. The prevailing mentality about the Electoral College is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Of course we all hope, regardless of our preference, that the horror of 2000 isn't repeated. I want a winner on Election Night and I'm sure all of the other Americans here do also.

 

[deep]

Direct democracy probably works best when you have a smaller, cohesive populous. In a larger, regionally diverse country, direct democracy could leave areas of the country with smaller populations without a voice.

Are you serious?

Any state where the election is 8-10 points in one direction has no voice.


90% of this country has been written off.

The candidates are only contesting 5-7 states.

Why should your vote count less than someone's vote in Colorado or West Virginia.

 

[verte76]

I don't much like it that my vote for Kerry isn't going to count. I live in a solid Bush state. I'm telling you, if Bush carries one state on Election Day, it will be my state. But, a significant number of Americans disagrees with me and wants to protect the sparsely-populated states from being underrepresented on Election Day.

 

[hiphop]

Surely there are other ways to ensure that the sparsely-populated states are represented properly.

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't much like it that my vote for Kerry isn't going to count. I live in a solid Bush state.

Along this line of thinking, the only votes that "count" are in extremely contested states.

I doubt we will ever be happy with any voting system, because nowadays, candidates analyze what it takes to technically win - not carry the clear and convincing message.

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

A great site for more info about the US voting process is Electoral Vote: http://www.electoral-vote
(and especially http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/electoral-college.html )

And here's another FAQ, this time from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/10/26/a_lesson_on_the_electoral_college/

C ya!

Marty (couldn't quickly find the story how the Electoral College was almost abolished in the late Sixties)

 

[strannix]

Don't worry about being confused, AcrobatMan. I doubt too many of us Americans could clearly tell you how the system works. Very simply, each state (plus DC) has a certain number of electoral votes, roughly proportional to their population. Most states (but not all!) now have laws that their electoral votes are awarded to the winner of that state's popular vote. Whoever gets 270 of the 538 electoral votes wins.

To answer one of your other questions, the public typically doesn't know beforehand who the Cabinet Secretaries will be. But he can't appoint just anyone, as they need to be confirmed by the Senate.

Sadly, most of the time Senate approval is merely a rubber stamp, as serious opposition to any pick is rare and for the Senate to reject a nominee is even rarer still. I don't think Bush had any nominees rejected, although there was opposition to John Ashcroft for Attorney General. I don't recall any Clinton nominees being rejected either, although if memory serves he withdrew one or two voluntarily.

Back to the electoral college ... I think it works OK most of the time. The problem in 2000 wasn't with the electoral college per se, but rather with the way the election was conducted in Florida specifically. As a Gore supporter, I wasn't real happy with the fact that Bush had fewer popular votes, but Gore didn't have a majority anyway so it's hard to argue that he carried the true will of the people.

The only real complication would be if the race were very close, and an elector changed his/her vote in one of the few states where they aren't legally required to go with the popular vote. This is unlikely; there were some rumblings that this might happen in 2000 but nothing came of it.

Additionally, there is a proposal in Colorado this year that, if passed, would require the state to award its electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote. I don't know if it will pass or not, but things could be very chaotic if it does and the Presidential race is decided differently because of it.

 

[AcrobatMan]

thanks marty ..excellent links..

now everything is clear.... much more than yesterday

thanks strannix

acrobatman

 

[AcrobatMan]

interesting link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/americas/04/vote_usa/map/html/default.stm

 

[verte76]

I agree, nbcrusader, any and all electoral systems are flawed and pretty damned imperfect. Every democracy has problems with some "fairness" controversy of some sort. This time around you'd think the U.S. only had seventeen states from all of this talk about swing states. It's almost like some votes will be more "equal" than others, depending on which state you live in. Damn, even Hawaii is in play. That used to be solid Democratic country. Virginia used to be one of the most Republican states, now it's considered a swing state. Strange.

 

[FallenAngel]

The electoral college does represent both the population size by the number of House of Reps elected using a single member district and the number of members of Senate fixed at 2 members for each state regardless of size of the population. So the electoral college in number roughly represent both criteria. However there are occassion where the result of the electoral votes tilted slightly the 'too close to call' popular vote result (usually less than 1% margin) such as the case of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, where the structure of electoral votes affected the casting vote for Bush in Florida. Any state which the popular vote between candidates are very narrow (ie not a solid bloc for either candidates) are swing states. Swing states matter most are large one, simply because the electoral votes from a big state is more likely to affect the result any election using majority system, unless there was almost a tie between candidate then 1 vote is enough to determine a winner.

population size, is proven not an issue to prevent direct election. Indonesia with a population of 220 millions, and almost 150 millions voters was succesful in having one of the largest direct election ever. The election was in July this year. If no candidates won in the election, a second run off elections between the top two was held on September 20th 2004 with the ticket polled the highest votes wins. New President and Vice President won the second round with more than 60% of the votes directly by the people.

I agree with hiphop, it is up for the american citizen to choose which system works best for you. But if concerns were about the size of the population, Indonesia is a great example for that.

FA

 

[FallenAngel]

Oh and it wasn't chaotic experience, though small number of irregularrities unavoidable, it was peaceful elections and Indonesia had 3 large scale elections on the same E year.

FA

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes Indonesia, gone through very tough times during the Asian Economic Meltdown and the IMF screwed her over in many parts of the reformasi framework but it demonstrates that functioning democracy is not incompatible with having a Muslim populus coming out of a long period of dictatorship, The majority practice Abangan is much less strict than the more funamentalist Santri school of Islamic thought, a land of many contrasts with a rich culture and wonderful sights but I digress, one thing with Indonesia is that the party lines are nowhere near as entrenched as GOP/DNC - they had the whole rainbow coalition thing working after Soeharto, it is still taking its steps - the corruption is still there and the millitary wields significant power when it needs too. Basically the US has had over 200 years to get its shit together, Indonesia hasn't had a decade.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if it was a straight popular vote, then the candidates would focus most of their attention on places with large populations, i.e. new york, california, texas, etc., completely disregarding the smaller states.

if it was a simply who won the most states, it makes the fact that states like california and new york have large populations insignificant.

the current system tries to make the best of both worlds... the higher the population the more electors you have, yet a smaller state with 10 or so electors is still significant in a close election.

when this whole thing was hatched out 200+ years ago, people identified more with their state than with the country. so a compromise had to be reached in order to assure that smaller states wouldn't be made insignificant. is it a perfect system? no... but it is the system, and will be until somebody can raise enough support to change it.