I'd like to know more about how it works. I think I understand that the "popular" vote doesn't necessarily count, it ends up in the hands of the Electoral College, whatever that is? Can we win if we get more people to vote for our candidate. I'm not even going to bring up which candidate, I just want to understand this "Voting for the Presidence" how it all works, input, facts about this, and even conspiracy thoughts on the "fixing" of the vote, how would that be accomplished if tried. Is it true that dead people are voting (so to speak) in some of these elections are they filling up buses full of people that are driven around voting either more than once, or under different names more about id, and which States if any demand picture ID is it easy for "anyone", who is in the US, citizen or not, to vote
Our Founding Fathers were wise. They understood we would have heavily populated metro areas and less dense rural areas. If left to popular vote, we could see New York and California elect our Presidents. Citizens of North Dakota, Idaho, etc. would have no voice in the election. Candidates would be able to stand only for issues that were positive for the densely populated regions. So... Each State has a certain number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. This is set up to represent the population of each State and how well that State should be represented... giving no specific State an advantage over another. Likewise, the Electoral College defined in our Constitution, says each State will have "Electors" equal to the number of Senators/Representatives. Each State tabulated their popular vote. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a specific State will see the Electors for that State cast their votes for him/her. Two states differ slightly, splitting their electoral votes between the candidates bases on percent of popular vote. The system has worked for years. Yes, there have been Presidents elected who did not have the majority of popular votes. But, that gives each citizen some voice that they wouldn't have if New York and California were able to elected our President. The downside is that many states become traditionally "red" or "blue". I live in Kansas. Historically, we are a Republican dominated state. The majority of our popular vote will almost always see the GOP candidate win. So, our Electoral College votes will go to that candidate. If I vote for the Democratic candidate, I know my vote won't count so might as well not vote. If I vote for the Republican candidate, I know my vote won't count... since the Electoral votes will go to him/her regardless... so I might as well not vote. Heavy red or blue states can see apathy and voters stay home because they believe... and rightly so... that their single vote will make no difference in a Presidential election. This year, there is a good chance we will see some red states come very close to turning blue... and visa versa. This could be one of the first times in history that a single vote could decide a Presidential election... because it would sway how the Electoral College votes are cast. Is there voter fraud? Yes! Is there significant voter fraud that could swing and election? I do not believe we have seen that yet. But, this could be the year. Our election process has moved to keep up with technology. Just as we have seen data hacked from large corporations and certain governmental agencies, what will keep hackers from tainting the popular vote... thereby having dramatic effect on the Electoral votes? I firmly believe we need some means of proving each of the people who vote in our elections is a citizen of the United States, is not a convicted felon, and is actually alive!!! I have no issue with requiring proof of citizenship for those who are registering to vote today. What I do have is that "proof" becoming... demanding things that are difficult or impossible for some to obtain. If we require a birth certificate, then do not disallow someone to vote because she has changed he name through marriage. Allow a birth certificate AND a marriage license as evidence of citizenship. Just as I firmly believe we need proof of citizenship, I also believe right wing elected officials like Kobach have worked to make the process as difficult as possible for the aged, ill, working class, etc. We have an excellent means of electing our President. No matter who wins or loses, someone will say the system is rigged, unfair, needs changed, is biased towards one Party over another. It's a little different system than a total democracy and is not taught well enough in school to where people understand the reason and importance of it.
I'm pretty sure there's no point for me to vote for Trump in California. Sorry Denise, you're in CA this year too. We will be contributing 55 points to Hillary! But there are other issues on the ballot also. Maybe it would be fairer if CA was split into 3.
I have a lot to learn about "the vote" but I have to run to Walmart, we have a storm coming in that could take out our electricity. I will be happy to get back here and comment, thank you both
Or, just secede and leave the rest of us alone..... I hope you take that in the fun way it is meant!!!!!
Don't worry, I did. I'm more of a Midwest type anyway. Have only lived in CA the last 13 years of my life.
I didn't understand the way the "popular" vote worked. I just thought they added up all the peoples votes, and whoever got the most wins. Why the heck isn't it that way. I mean I'm a little confused. They think the city folk will always vote differently than the country folk, smaller populated areas?
I've been studying all the issues I'm getting in the mail at least. But if you asked me what 61 was I couldn't tell you, even if there is a 61, LOL!
I think they still tell you what the actual vote was and I think it usually follows the electoral vote but I could be mistaken.
Lol, the issues can be confusing. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_61,_Drug_Price_Standards_(2016)
@Will Lawrence, that was excellent. Thank you. I do think that it is important that everyone vote because you can't know for sure, and because there are generally other things on the ballot that are worth voting for. When I lived in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, our national elections nearly always went to Republicans but the Valley voted the straight Democrat ticket. Locally, everything was decided in the Democrat primary because no Republicans even bothered to put their name in to be placed on the ballot in a local election. The first Republican ever to run for sheriff in Cameron County wasn't on the ballot until after I left there in 2000. On the rare occasion that a Republican was on the ballot, he got so few votes that it was probably embarrassing. A Republican did win a seat on the state legislature in the Rio Grande Valley a few years back but I think he got in because it was an off-year election, with no presidential or gubernatorial slot, so the Democrats didn't bother voting in the general election, given that they were usually running unopposed or all but unopposed. Still, things are changing in that border area, to some part because those who have to work for a living, rather than being on welfare or the government payroll, are sick of open borders. Most states obligate their electors to vote the way that the state voted, in other words to represent the will of the people who voted on election day but if an elector does not do that, in some states, he can be jailed, but his contrary vote will nevertheless count. Some states allow electors to vote their conscience, which could mean that an elector might vote differently than the state that he represents voted. He will probably never be chosen as an elector again, but his vote will count. These things are possible, but rarely occur. Maine and Nebraska are the two states that split their electoral votes. There is a discussion on that on Mental Floss. An explanation of how this works in Maine can be found here. This is important to us in Maine's 2nd District, where I live, because the 2nd District is more rural and conservative than the 1st District, which contains most of Maine's cities. While there have been some polls that have suggested that it would be theoretically possible for Trump to win Maine outright, more realistically he is expected to win in the 2nd District, which would give him one elector from Maine, while Clinton would get three, unless the Libertarian candidate does better than expected, and is able to take one of the electors from Hillary. As compared to California, with 55 electors, one electoral vote in Maine wouldn't mean much but the contest could be that close. The Wall Street Journal, I think it was, did a projection a month or so ago that showed a possibility of Trump winning by one electoral vote, which assumes that he can carry our 2nd District. Despite the fact that Maine has only four electoral votes to offer to the mix, this has us fired up, and apparently the Trump campaign as well, since he has visited Maine three or four times already, and sent his son a couple of other times. He seems to be trying to win three or four of our electoral votes though, since he mostly appears in the 1st District, although he's been to Bangor (2nd District) a couple of times, and will be here again this Saturday.
I hope you have Ella Katz registered to vote. Forgot the other ones name.... Since you're two people on here maybe you can vote twice ha ha ha.
Thanks to this thread, I got a clarification on that voting system of the US. Over here, we have a direct voting where the number of votes cast are counted and the results determine the winner. The electoral vote is new to me and although I have an idea, I thought the electoral vote is the discretion of the electoral representative. It's only now that I got to know that the voters have a direct "say" on how the electoral representative would be voting. I cannot say which is more effective and practical to use - direct voting or electoral voting - but definitely democracy has its faults too when it comes to choosing the leader.