presidential election in USA - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-26-2004, 01:38 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 07:07 AM
presidential election in USA

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.
__________________

__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 06:17 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 07:07 AM
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!
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 07:44 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
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
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:03 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:07 AM
They are not directly democratically elected. The Prez decides for his staff.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:10 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
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...
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:13 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:07 AM
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/c...s/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 is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:15 AM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AcrobatMan


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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:17 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 07:07 AM
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 is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:18 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 07:07 AM
americans wake up late ..its 10 o clock at salt lake city
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:19 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AcrobatMan


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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:24 AM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


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!!
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:26 AM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
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
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:31 AM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars



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...
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:37 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 09:07 AM
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.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 08:43 AM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:07 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com