American Election System Question

Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?

AlanG wrote:
Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?

The president is elected by the states. Each state runs an election to see
which president is most popular in that state. The state then votes for the
president in what is called the "electoral college".

States are given a number of electoral college votes varying from 3 to 55
depending on their population. In almost all states, all of their electoral
votes are given to the candidate having the most votes. So a state having 20
electoral votes would vote all 20 for the winner even if the winner won by 1 vote.

A few states (Maine is one) will make their electoral college votes
proportional to the citizen's votes (so that if one candidate won by one vote,
half the state electoral college vote would go to each candidate).

However, Colorado had a referendum to choose this method of proportional
representation and it was turned down. One reason is that by having 1 huge
block of votes, it makes the presidential candidates take your state much more
seriously.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:19:05 +0000 (UTC), "AlanG"
wrote:

Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?


I assume that you are talking about the president here, as it is
different for other officials. In the US, in a presidential election,
you are voting indirectly. That is, each candidate in each state puts
up what is called a slate of electors and you are voting for that
slate of electors in that state when you vote for a particular
candidate. These electors are supposedly sworn to vote for that
candidate when the electoral college (as it is called) actually meets
to cast their votes, though it has happened occasionally in the past
where one votes differently that he or she is supposed to. Whoever
gets a majority of the electors votes wins. Each state gets one
elector for each senator they have (which is two) and then one for
each House of Representatives member they have, which varies by state
since representatives are proportional to the population of the state.
So, from election to election, thqt actual number of electors each
state has can change and, in fact, did from the last election in 2002.
Some gained because they grew in population proportionally and some
lost. This is why the total number of electors is always equal to the
total number of Senators plus the total number of representatives
there are in Congress.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:19:05 +0000 (UTC), "AlanG"
wrote:

Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?


I assume that you are talking about the president here, as it is
different for other officials. In the US, in a presidential election,
you are voting indirectly. That is, each candidate in each state puts
up what is called a slate of electors and you are voting for that
slate of electors in that state when you vote for a particular
candidate. These electors are supposedly sworn to vote for that
candidate when the electoral college (as it is called) actually meets
to cast their votes, though it has happened occasionally in the past
where one votes differently that he or she is supposed to. Whoever
gets a majority of the electors votes wins. Each state gets one
elector for each senator they have (which is two) and then one for
each House of Representatives member they have, which varies by state
since representatives are proportional to the population of the state.
So, from election to election, thqt actual number of electors each
state has can change and, in fact, did from the last election in 2002.
Some gained because they grew in population proportionally and some
lost. This is why the total number of electors is always equal to the
total number of Senators plus the total number of representatives
there are in Congress.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 11:19:05 +0000 (UTC), "AlanG"
wrote:

Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?


I assume that you are talking about the president here, as it is
different for other officials. In the US, in a presidential election,
you are voting indirectly. That is, each candidate in each state puts
up what is called a slate of electors and you are voting for that
slate of electors in that state when you vote for a particular
candidate. These electors are supposedly sworn to vote for that
candidate when the electoral college (as it is called) actually meets
to cast their votes, though it has happened occasionally in the past
where one votes differently that he or she is supposed to. Whoever
gets a majority of the electors votes wins. Each state gets one
elector for each senator they have (which is two) and then one for
each House of Representatives member they have, which varies by state
since representatives are proportional to the population of the state.
So, from election to election, thqt actual number of electors each
state has can change and, in fact, did from the last election in 2002.
Some gained because they grew in population proportionally and some
lost. This is why the total number of electors is always equal to the
total number of Senators plus the total number of representatives
there are in Congress.

In article , nobody
wrote:

€ AlanG wrote:
€ Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
€ actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?
€
€ The president is elected by the states. Each state runs an election to see
€ which president is most popular in that state. The state then votes for the
€ president in what is called the "electoral college".
€
€ States are given a number of electoral college votes varying from 3 to 55
€ depending on their population. In almost all states, all of their electoral
€ votes are given to the candidate having the most votes. So a state having 20
€ electoral votes would vote all 20 for the winner even if the winner won by 1
€ vote.
€
€ A few states (Maine is one) will make their electoral college votes
€ proportional to the citizen's votes (so that if one candidate won by one vote,
€ half the state electoral college vote would go to each candidate).
€
€ However, Colorado had a referendum to choose this method of proportional
€ representation and it was turned down. One reason is that by having 1 huge
€ block of votes, it makes the presidential candidates take your state much more
€ seriously.

I strongly disagree with this last statement, and if this is the logic
used in Colorado, then it's a shame that the voters there were duped by
such a bull**** argument.

The problem with the "winner take all" approach is that as soon as a
state has a significant margin towards one candidate, both candidates
give up on the state. California, for example, is hardly a homogenous
bloc of Democratic voters, yet was treated that way during this last
election. Likewise, there are areas of Texas that would have voted for
Kerry instead of Bush, had Kerry spent just a little bit if time there.
If all the states would cast their electoral votes proportionally, it
would force candidates to evaluate and campaign to the people on a
closer level. The only people who truely benefit from the present
system are the candidates themselves.

Alan

In article , nobody
wrote:

€ AlanG wrote:
€ Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
€ actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?
€
€ The president is elected by the states. Each state runs an election to see
€ which president is most popular in that state. The state then votes for the
€ president in what is called the "electoral college".
€
€ States are given a number of electoral college votes varying from 3 to 55
€ depending on their population. In almost all states, all of their electoral
€ votes are given to the candidate having the most votes. So a state having 20
€ electoral votes would vote all 20 for the winner even if the winner won by 1
€ vote.
€
€ A few states (Maine is one) will make their electoral college votes
€ proportional to the citizen's votes (so that if one candidate won by one vote,
€ half the state electoral college vote would go to each candidate).
€
€ However, Colorado had a referendum to choose this method of proportional
€ representation and it was turned down. One reason is that by having 1 huge
€ block of votes, it makes the presidential candidates take your state much more
€ seriously.

I strongly disagree with this last statement, and if this is the logic
used in Colorado, then it's a shame that the voters there were duped by
such a bull**** argument.

The problem with the "winner take all" approach is that as soon as a
state has a significant margin towards one candidate, both candidates
give up on the state. California, for example, is hardly a homogenous
bloc of Democratic voters, yet was treated that way during this last
election. Likewise, there are areas of Texas that would have voted for
Kerry instead of Bush, had Kerry spent just a little bit if time there.
If all the states would cast their electoral votes proportionally, it
would force candidates to evaluate and campaign to the people on a
closer level. The only people who truely benefit from the present
system are the candidates themselves.

Alan

In article , nobody
wrote:

€ AlanG wrote:
€ Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
€ actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?
€
€ The president is elected by the states. Each state runs an election to see
€ which president is most popular in that state. The state then votes for the
€ president in what is called the "electoral college".
€
€ States are given a number of electoral college votes varying from 3 to 55
€ depending on their population. In almost all states, all of their electoral
€ votes are given to the candidate having the most votes. So a state having 20
€ electoral votes would vote all 20 for the winner even if the winner won by 1
€ vote.
€
€ A few states (Maine is one) will make their electoral college votes
€ proportional to the citizen's votes (so that if one candidate won by one vote,
€ half the state electoral college vote would go to each candidate).
€
€ However, Colorado had a referendum to choose this method of proportional
€ representation and it was turned down. One reason is that by having 1 huge
€ block of votes, it makes the presidential candidates take your state much more
€ seriously.

I strongly disagree with this last statement, and if this is the logic
used in Colorado, then it's a shame that the voters there were duped by
such a bull**** argument.

The problem with the "winner take all" approach is that as soon as a
state has a significant margin towards one candidate, both candidates
give up on the state. California, for example, is hardly a homogenous
bloc of Democratic voters, yet was treated that way during this last
election. Likewise, there are areas of Texas that would have voted for
Kerry instead of Bush, had Kerry spent just a little bit if time there.
If all the states would cast their electoral votes proportionally, it
would force candidates to evaluate and campaign to the people on a
closer level. The only people who truely benefit from the present
system are the candidates themselves.

Alan

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0800 Alan Street
wrote:

:In article , nobody
:wrote:

:€ AlanG wrote:
:€ Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
:€ actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?

:€ The president is elected by the states. Each state runs an election to see
:€ which president is most popular in that state. The state then votes for the
:€ president in what is called the "electoral college".

:€ States are given a number of electoral college votes varying from 3 to 55
:€ depending on their population. In almost all states, all of their electoral
:€ votes are given to the candidate having the most votes. So a state having 20
:€ electoral votes would vote all 20 for the winner even if the winner won by 1
:€ vote.

:€ A few states (Maine is one) will make their electoral college votes
:€ proportional to the citizen's votes (so that if one candidate won by one vote,
:€ half the state electoral college vote would go to each candidate).

:€ However, Colorado had a referendum to choose this method of proportional
:€ representation and it was turned down. One reason is that by having 1 huge
:€ block of votes, it makes the presidential candidates take your state much more
:€ seriously.

:I strongly disagree with this last statement, and if this is the logic
:used in Colorado, then it's a shame that the voters there were duped by
:such a bull**** argument.

It is a shame that you lack the comprehension to understand it.

:The problem with the "winner take all" approach is that as soon as a
:state has a significant margin towards one candidate, both candidates
:give up on the state.

True. Though if it starts swinging, both will pay attention.

: California, for example, is hardly a homogenous
:bloc of Democratic voters, yet was treated that way during this last
:election. Likewise, there are areas of Texas that would have voted for
:Kerry instead of Bush, had Kerry spent just a little bit if time there.
:If all the states would cast their electoral votes proportionally, it
:would force candidates to evaluate and campaign to the people on a
:closer level.

The prisoners dilemma.

That only works if all states change their rules.

If only some states change their rules, the candidate will have a choice of
going to one of those states to try to swing on EC vote, or go to a state that
plays winner take all and try to swing 10+ EC votes.

Which candidate is going to choose A?

: The only people who truely benefit from the present
:system are the candidates themselves.

False, the states benefit.

Feel free to try to get your state to change its rules. Make the argument.

Remember, each state is free to make its own rules.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 08:21:30 -0800 Alan Street
wrote:

:In article , nobody
:wrote:

:€ AlanG wrote:
:€ Pardon my ignorance here, but when you vote in America what or who do you
:€ actually vote for? Do you have 1 vote or...?

:€ The president is elected by the states. Each state runs an election to see
:€ which president is most popular in that state. The state then votes for the
:€ president in what is called the "electoral college".

:€ States are given a number of electoral college votes varying from 3 to 55
:€ depending on their population. In almost all states, all of their electoral
:€ votes are given to the candidate having the most votes. So a state having 20
:€ electoral votes would vote all 20 for the winner even if the winner won by 1
:€ vote.

:€ A few states (Maine is one) will make their electoral college votes
:€ proportional to the citizen's votes (so that if one candidate won by one vote,
:€ half the state electoral college vote would go to each candidate).

:€ However, Colorado had a referendum to choose this method of proportional
:€ representation and it was turned down. One reason is that by having 1 huge
:€ block of votes, it makes the presidential candidates take your state much more
:€ seriously.

:I strongly disagree with this last statement, and if this is the logic
:used in Colorado, then it's a shame that the voters there were duped by
:such a bull**** argument.

It is a shame that you lack the comprehension to understand it.

:The problem with the "winner take all" approach is that as soon as a
:state has a significant margin towards one candidate, both candidates
:give up on the state.

True. Though if it starts swinging, both will pay attention.

: California, for example, is hardly a homogenous
:bloc of Democratic voters, yet was treated that way during this last
:election. Likewise, there are areas of Texas that would have voted for
:Kerry instead of Bush, had Kerry spent just a little bit if time there.
:If all the states would cast their electoral votes proportionally, it
:would force candidates to evaluate and campaign to the people on a
:closer level.

The prisoners dilemma.

That only works if all states change their rules.

If only some states change their rules, the candidate will have a choice of
going to one of those states to try to swing on EC vote, or go to a state that
plays winner take all and try to swing 10+ EC votes.

Which candidate is going to choose A?

: The only people who truely benefit from the present
:system are the candidates themselves.

False, the states benefit.

Feel free to try to get your state to change its rules. Make the argument.

Remember, each state is free to make its own rules.

--
Binyamin Dissen
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.