Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Naso on November 03, 2004, 04:50:00 AM
-
Well, I have little informations about the electoral system in US, and it seem complicated, I wish that someone help me to understand better how it works, I am really courious about it.
I have yet to understand why historically is as it is, but first of all, I wish to understand how it works.
So far, this is what I have heard/understood:
The president, being the USA a federation of sovereing (almost) states, is elected by representatives coming out from each single state.
Each state has his own peculiar system, but generally the people in the state vote for one of the candidates (or the party?), and, with few exceptions (please name and explain it), the one that gets 50%+1 (or the relative majority) of the votes has the right to nominate the state voters, and this ends, usually, in having all the electoral votes of the state for the state's winner.
Each state has a different value in electoral votes (EV), and here the thing become foggy for me, at first I tought that the number of EV for each state was fixed since the beginning, but I have read a note that stated one of them to have changed... "weight" due to its increased population.
At this point I get confused.
The EV are based on the actual state population, or there's another system?
Thanks in advance for the infos.
-
Found some more info here:
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/electoral.college/more.html
But yet I have to understand how the electoral votes change in reletion of population.
-
Naso, it's called the Electoral College. Each state gets a certain number of votes based on population. More people, more electoral votes. The winner of the popular (my) vote wins the electoral votes for that state. The one with the majority of the electoral votes wins.
-
OK
1st the 'People' don't directly elect the president as you know. The reasons are in depth and I won't try to address the Historical reasoning behind this process.
Each state has 1 elector for each Senator and Congress person. Every State has 2 senators. The number of congressional districts in each state depends on Population.
So 50 states = 100 Senators
435 Representatives (435 Congressional Seats) + 3 votes for Washington D.C. = 438
438 + 100 = 538 electoral votes
The electors, in all but 2 states, are chosen by the winning Party (winner take all).
These electors select the president. In most states the electors are legally free to cast their votes for anyone they want regardless of the popular vote. This doesn't happen because the winning party only picks electors that have promised or that they trust will follow the will of the people. Basically the vote is stacked so the outcome is not in doubt.
In the other 2 states they apportion their electoral votes based on how a particular candidate does in each of their congressional/Senate districts. For example Maine has 4 electoral votes. 1 candidate could get 1 or 2 or 3 or all 4 depending how the district voted.
Most Americans don't know how it works either.
-
I see, and I am starting to understand the logic (amaizingly similar to our presidential election, with due differences).
Another question:
I see that, unless the number of states change, the senators and the DC's "bonus votes", are fixed, and I guess the change in electoral votes a state has is based on the change in number of congressmen.
The question is:
The 435 representatives in the congress is a fixed number with the distribution that change based on population, or there's a relation that vary the absolute and/or state's number of congressmen based on overall and/or state-related population?
In short:
How the 435 number comes out?
-
Every 10 years the US takes an official Census.
Based on those Census findings the number of Representatives is adjusted to reflect the demographics in the US. If the US suddenly lost some of its population the number of representatives goes down.
If folks all moved from California to Nevada the number representatives in Nevada would go up, in California they go down, to reflect the population change etc...
Each State gets 2 Senators. When the Country was founded small states were worried about being bullied by the states with the larger populations. The larger States felt that since most of the US population lives there that representatives based on population would be best. For example imagine a small state like Maine negating the voice of the people of California.
So as a compromise a deal was struck:
2 Senators per state
Representative congress based on population.
Before a law becomes a law it goes through Congress then the Senate then the President signs it.
There's a series of checks and balances.
Americans didn't trust governments. That's why we like our guns.
-
I didn't read your questions carefully enough...
Another question:
I see that, unless the number of states change, the senators and the DC's "bonus votes", are fixed, and I guess the change in electoral votes a state has is based on the change in number of congressmen.
Yes unless we get more states then the number Senators stays fixed at 100 (2* 50).
The DC bonus votes are 'representative votes' rather then Senate districts.
The question is:
The 435 representatives in the congress is a fixed number with the distribution that change based on population, or there's a relation that vary the absolute and/or state's number of congressmen based on overall and/or state-related population?
It varies with State populations. Lets say 50% of the poplutaion left California, then California would loose seats in Congress. If that 50% of California moved to Navada, Nevada would gain seats.
If the Florida population grows substantially then the number representatives in Florida wil go up.
In fact even though Bush won the same number of States as our last election he actually gained electoral votes this time because in some of those states the number of representatives went up as the population in those states grew.
-
I heard it summed up once that made sense, Electoral votes were designed to let the farmers vote count so as the major cities
didn't always decide the elections.
IKON
-
Thank you very much, Wotan, I love to learn things. :)
Now I am starting to grasp better the system.
A little off-topic question:
The laws are proposed by the congressmen, the senators, and the president in tha same way, or there are differences?
P.S.
Nobody trust the government, and the bad is that it always has more guns than the population... weird, uh? ;)
-
Well no law gets suggested or proposed in isolation. Political Parties and interest groups work together and shape legistlation.
However, the bill/law need to be passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate before it gets to the president.
Here's the lyrics to a song taken from a 3 minute animated short that most american kids who grew up in the 70s and early 80s would know
I am just a Bill (http://www.nethomeschool.com/schoolhouserock/wav/bill.wav)
Boy: Whew! You sure gotta climb
a lot of steps to get to this
Capitol Building here in
Washington. But I wonder who
that sad little scrap of paper is?
I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law some day
At least I hope and pray that I will
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.
Bill: Well, I got this far. When I started I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea.
Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called
their local Congressman, and said, "You're right, there oughta be a law."
Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I
became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.
I'm just a bill
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I'm stuck in committee
And I'll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss
and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Listen to those Congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?
Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favorably, otherwise I may die.
Boy: Die?
Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Ooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.
Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?
Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.
Boy: Oh no!
Bill: Oh yes!
I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: You mean even if the Whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no?
Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the president vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old...
Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?
Bill: No!
But how I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Congressman: He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law!
Bill: Oh yes!!!
-
Originally posted by 1K0N
I heard it summed up once that made sense, Electoral votes were designed to let the farmers vote count so as the major cities
didn't always decide the elections.
IKON
How?
I mean, it's "almost" the majority that will decide anyway, being farmers or people from cities, with the only exception that low populated states gain more relative weight having a fixed minimum of 2(senate)+3(congress - from the quote of CNN)= 5 votes.
Look at today's elections:
Bush have an absolute majority and is going to have is 2nd term, how this cut have been changed by your system?
In the "farmers vote count" line of reasoning, i mean.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Well no law gets suggested or proposed in isolation. Political Parties and interest groups work together and shape legistlation.
However, the bill/law need to be passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate before it gets to the president.
Here's the lyrics to a song taken from a 3 minute animated short that most american kids who grew up in the 70s and early 80s would know
I am just a Bill (http://www.nethomeschool.com/schoolhouserock/wav/bill.wav)
Exactly the same here, the only difference that I see is that a parlamentare (congressman) or a senatore (senator) have to propose the bill/law, in the sense that officially there are not interest groups or parties involved.
Wait, there's another one:
The government (we are a parlamentar republic), in the person of the prime minister or one of the ministers can pass bills that have the validity of a law for 60 days (decreto legge), then they have to be transformed in law by the normal procedure, or decay.
-
The electoral college gives states with low populations a slight boost in power when it comes to voting for the President.
Let's say a state has 1 million people and gets 1 electoral vote per 100,000 people. So that will be 10 electoral votes plus 2 more = 12 total. Another state has 10 million people, it will get 100 electoral votes + 2 = 102 total. See how the voters in the smaller state have a slightly larger vote? These are fictitious numbers, btw.
Usually it makes no difference because elections aren't close enough that the popular vote and the electoral college vote are different. But as we saw in 2000, it can happen.
When the constitution was ratified all the states agreed to this system.
ra
-
I understand, Ra.
I see the logic to give the less populated states more weight.
What I fail too see is this "farmerboy" stuff.
-
Now that Bush slaughtered kerrie in the popular vote too.... we probly won't hear too much screaming for dumping states rights from the city dwellers.
lazs
-
Exactly the same here, the only difference that I see is that a parlamentare (congressman) or a senatore (senator) have to propose the bill/law, in the sense that officially there are not interest groups or parties involved.
Well yes its the Congressmen that has to propose the law 'officially' but it goes to a committee then if it passes through the committee it will go to a full vote.
Now the minority party has 'tools' at its disposal to prevent bills/laws from getting out of committe and/or to prevent a full vote. For example Bush has several Judicial nominees held up in the Senate etc..
These 'tools' are procedural rules for the congress not rules that originate in the constitution.
-
Well, Seem that we are more similar than we want to admit.
;)
-
Originally posted by Naso
I understand, Ra.
I see the logic to give the less populated states more weight.
What I fail too see is this "farmerboy" stuff.
Naso,
It’s not as simple as 'farm boy vs. city dweller'. As I said it would take too much typing to even touch on the history of how and why our system developed.
I may try later tonight if I have time but it is what it is.
I will say that the Founding Fathers didn’t trust the 'mob' any more then a King or ‘Dictator'. Early in our history the right to vote was full of obstacles, some racial, some sexist etc... But for the most part our form of democracy was an oligarchy of wealthy white land owners.
The electoral system set up a buffer between the 'mob' and the Presidency.
The rulers were destroyed, but who was there to protect the Many against the Many…?
G. H. Lewis
The Life and Works of Goethe
But it goes even deeper then that.
Even now our 'democracy' has under 1/3 participation of the 290 million citizens. This election had about 120 million people cast ballots and this was a record. Not all 280 million US citizens are eligible voters. IIRC record participation of eligible voters was about 60%. This is not a bad thing because most are too ignorant of the issues and the stakes that they are unable to make an informed decision based on facts.
Those that do take an interest it’s mostly limited to watching the conventions and debates counting how many times one guy misspoke or smirked. They listen to 50 minute speeches full of feel good sound bites that don't actually say anything. As long as it makes them feel good they will express well delivered it was.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Even now our 'democracy' has under 1/3 participation of the 290 million citizens. This election had about 120 million people cast ballots and this was a record. Not all 280 million US citizens are eligible voters. IIRC record participation of eligible voters was about 60%. This is not a bad thing because most are too ignorant of the issues and the stakes that they are unable to make an informed decision based on facts.
Those that do take an interest it’s mostly limited to watching the conventions and debates counting how many times one guy misspoke or smirked. They listen to 50 minute speeches full of feel good sound bites that don't actually say anything. As long as it makes them feel good they will express well delivered it was.
Eh eh, I repeat myself, but, we are more similar than we like to think.
-
My Grandfather immigrated from Italy in the '30s.
I have an old Family picture of his family in Italy before they left. I wil may scan later and post it.
His name was Anthony Caffo (he died last year). I can't recall off hand the region where he was from but it was in the Northern part of the country.
So we (you and I rather then Italians and Americans) may have even more in common then we thought.
-
Indeed.
It's what I think when I see the little US-Euro wars that often burn in this forum, it's like two brothers always fighting each other, makes you want to spank both !! (Unless you live in UK ;) )
-
Late Condolences for your Grandfather, Wotan. :(
It require guts to do that kind of jump in the dark.
-
Naso, i posted this in another thread, but it is relative to your questions:
Confusing thought on electoral votes, why is place XXX more important than place YYY
lets use california and iowa for this example.
55 electoral votes, versus 7 electoral votes.
california is jam packed with people wanting to live in a nice climate, iowa is spread thin with people who want to provide grain for our country.
i am generalizing there, but take it as it is for now. yes i understand the meaning of populas and total number of votes, but also consider there are people who do live there that do not follow the norm in either state.
now thinking about that add colorado to the mix. another 7 vote state.
now lets pretend both iowa and colorado vote 90% Bush, and california votes 55% kerry. it is possible that the 55 electoral votes of cali give kerry the office.
now all of a sudden gangsta G's vote is more important than susi homemaker in iowa.
personally i think everyone's vote should be of equal value. right now i can see that it is not, and never will be. i choose NOT to live in the land or fruits and nuts (and you know what i mean by that), but my vote is less important than theirs, because i choose a different lifestyle and belief system than them.
if ever a studmuffin says to me "equal rights" i can say with true proof it has more rights in the elections than i do if it lives in the natural habitat.
man it is a crazy world.
-
my grandparents on my mothers side came from Italy, grandmother Naples, grandfather Sicily.
-
Originally posted by JB73
if ever a studmuffin says to me "equal rights" i can say with true proof it has more rights in the elections than i do if it lives in the natural habitat.
Here's my relevant contribution to this topic:
studmuffin, queer, queen, pillow biter, unstraight, carnivore, fruit cake, light-in-the-loafers, shirt lifter, peter eater, nancy boy, fudge packer, grindle packer, bunger, tail gunner, butt pirate, flamer, bellybutton clown, bellybutton bandit, butt bunny, butt bumper, broken arrow, batty boy, rump ranger, waste hole wanderer, back door bandit, sphincter proder, ring wraith, anal advocate, reverse parker, poof, poofter, woop, woopter, woof, woofter, double adapter, rectum rider, rectum raper, rectum robber, arse bandit, meat browner
-
Originally posted by JB73
55 electoral votes, versus 7 electoral votes.
california is jam packed with people wanting to live in a nice climate, Iowa is spread thin with people who want to provide grain for our country.
man it is a crazy world.
I'd say Iowa has the upper hand.
crazy world? nahh, just crazy Kalifornians. they want to bite the hand that feeds them.
you can figure out, the rest of the story. ;)