| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Electoral Votes | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 27 2004, 12:46 PM (167 Views) | |
| karmasasha | Aug 27 2004, 12:46 PM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
I have never really thought about electoral votes too much. Just took the concept for granted. Monday I was listening to a public radio station that was discussing the issues. I was surprised to hear these facts. Although it is a federal institution, the individual states have the right to change the way the votes are given out. Colorado was the state being discussed. The last presidential election Bush had approx 58 percent of the popular vote in Colorado and Gore 42 percent. All of the electoral votes were than given to Bush. That concept can be changed by each state to have the electoral vote be reflective of the popular vote. I'm sure you are all more knowledgeable on this subject than I am and I am interested in what you know. What does your state do? Andrea |
|
|
| cmoehle | Aug 27 2004, 02:46 PM Post #2 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Texas has 32 elctoral votes. Winner take all. There have been efforts to make it proportional (wish we had search, iirc proportional systems were discussed re Canadian politics). |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| olstuf | Aug 27 2004, 03:18 PM Post #3 |
|
Bill
|
Wisconsin has winner takes all. We used to have 11 but may have lost one due to population decrease. Have to check. Yes, we have lost one, now only 10 very important ones. Latest poll show Bush has pulled slightly ahead here. The only poll that really counts is on Nov. 2, 04 |
![]() |
|
| MDPD6320 | Aug 27 2004, 03:19 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Frank - Gainesville, Florida
|
The institution of the winner take all electoral vote system is a safeguard to prevent population centers from dictating to the rest of the country. Proportional distribution of electoral votes would serve to defeat the intent of the system. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom knew that population centers with many voters would disregard the wishes of less populated state with interests that would not cause a concern to urban voters. In this, regard the Electoral College levels the playing field. Above all remember the United States is not a democracy, but a representative republic, and thank God for that. Frank |
|
" The government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take everything you have." "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Aug 27 2004, 03:29 PM Post #5 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Exactly. Though some radicals seem to think it is a pure majority-rule democracy. We've seen too many times the results of primaries based on popular vote. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| karmasasha | Aug 27 2004, 03:39 PM Post #6 |
|
Unregistered
|
I forgot to add that Minnesota has 10 votes, winner take all. Also, I have read that 48 states are winner take all but it did not list the two who were not. I am curious as to whether they were highly populated? |
|
|
| olstuf | Aug 27 2004, 03:41 PM Post #7 |
|
Bill
|
But one of the problems of representative vote is the gerrymandering that move districts into areas of parties interests. Chris, you certainly should know about that in south Texas. What's his name, Delay(?)managed to get another one is less than the normal time after each census. That too has been happening since the onset. Just have refined the process. |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Aug 27 2004, 03:49 PM Post #8 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Yes, olstuf, Texas is famous for gerrymandering, Dems and Reps alike. The last one was illegal. So was the one before iirc. I guess when we say winner take all we mean winner take all! According to this, Andrea, "The two exceptions are the states of Maine and Nebraska, where two of the electors are chosen by the popular vote statewide, and the rest are determined by the popular vote within each Congressional district." |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| PRT | Aug 27 2004, 03:49 PM Post #9 |
|
Member
|
This is pretty interesting, so I googled it. NY has 33 votes, winner take all. The two states that do it differently are Nebraska and Maine. Didn't check how many electoral votes each state has. |
![]() |
|
| sylley2000 | Aug 27 2004, 03:50 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
|
Karma, "It's a winner-take-all system in all other states except Nebraska and Maine. In those states, the winner of the popular vote gets two electoral votes, with the rest determined by the popular vote within each congressional district. Neither state has ever split its electoral college votes." Got that from this link: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elec...3077685,00.html Sylvia |
![]() |
|
| karmasasha | Aug 27 2004, 04:10 PM Post #11 |
|
Unregistered
|
3 answers in 1 minute! You people need a raise. Thanks, I coudn't find the answer to that one. |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |








2:26 AM Jul 11