TI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
Google is a great tool. You should really embrace it!
Right I'm confused...ish
I know that everyone votes in the election, but what are these Electoral College Votes that all the news channels seem to be talking about?
I know that everyone votes in the election, but what are these Electoral College Votes that all the news channels seem to be talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
Google is a great tool. You should really embrace it!
GM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
Google is a great tool. You should really embrace it!
I'll take that comment as sarcasm....
I actually value the opinions of the engrained forumer's on here rather than Wikipedia...
Right I'm confused...ish
I know that everyone votes in the election, but what are these Electoral College Votes that all the news channels seem to be talking about?
I know that everyone votes in the election, but what are these Electoral College Votes that all the news channels seem to be talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
Google is a great tool. You should really embrace it!
I'll take that comment as sarcasm....
I actually value the opinions of the engrained forumer's on here rather than Wikipedia...
SC
scottishtv
Founding member
Gaz, you should also note that all states (except two) operate the electoral college on a winner takes all basis, so once a majority is reached in a state for one party, their presidential candidate will take all of the electoral college votes for that state.
That's why the "battleground states" are so important. In most states a clear majority in favour of one side is already known so the parties don't really bother campaigning there at all as it is too difficult to swing it to the other side.
That's why the "battleground states" are so important. In most states a clear majority in favour of one side is already known so the parties don't really bother campaigning there at all as it is too difficult to swing it to the other side.
GM
So say if it was 269 to 269? Then what would happen?
Gaz, you should also note that all states (except two) operate the electoral college on a winner takes all basis, so once a majority is reached in a state for one candidate, they take all of the electoral college votes for that state.
That's why the "battleground states" are so important. In most states a clear majority in favour of one side is already known so the parties don't really bother campaigning there at all as it is too difficult to swing it to the other side.
That's why the "battleground states" are so important. In most states a clear majority in favour of one side is already known so the parties don't really bother campaigning there at all as it is too difficult to swing it to the other side.
So say if it was 269 to 269? Then what would happen?
SC
It's quite unlikely as each state has a different number of votes based on it's population, but it is possible. Short answer: I don't know.
scottishtv
Founding member
So say if it was 269 to 269? Then what would happen?
It's quite unlikely as each state has a different number of votes based on it's population, but it is possible. Short answer: I don't know.
SK
So say if it was 269 to 269? Then what would happen?
December 21st is hastened.
Seriously:
Such a result would be thrown to Congress, with each state’s House delegation being allowed to choose from among the top three vote getters in the electoral college. A third candidate could emerge without winning a state if a “faithless elector” decides to cast their vote for someone other than to whom they were pledged. Not all states have laws against faithless electors, and those laws that do exist remain legally untested. Several states, too, have entered a compact that pledges their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but that agreement does not go into effect until enough states have signed on to wield a majority (they have 132 electoral votes with 9 states, including California and Illinois, signed on). It’s unlikely any state would step in to alter its electoral vote to avoid a tie, as it would require sending electors to vote for a candidate other than the one that won the vote in that state. Since the GOP takeover the House in 2010, Republicans hold a majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives, meaning a contingent election would likely end up electing Mitt Romney president. The Senate meanwhile, is held by Democrats and would presumably vote for Joe Biden in the case of a tie, making him the third vice president to serve under two presidents and keeping his path to 2016 open.
Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/06/what-happens-if-the-electoral-college-is
Gaz, you should also note that all states (except two) operate the electoral college on a winner takes all basis, so once a majority is reached in a state for one candidate, they take all of the electoral college votes for that state.
That's why the "battleground states" are so important. In most states a clear majority in favour of one side is already known so the parties don't really bother campaigning there at all as it is too difficult to swing it to the other side.
That's why the "battleground states" are so important. In most states a clear majority in favour of one side is already known so the parties don't really bother campaigning there at all as it is too difficult to swing it to the other side.
So say if it was 269 to 269? Then what would happen?
December 21st is hastened.
Seriously:
Such a result would be thrown to Congress, with each state’s House delegation being allowed to choose from among the top three vote getters in the electoral college. A third candidate could emerge without winning a state if a “faithless elector” decides to cast their vote for someone other than to whom they were pledged. Not all states have laws against faithless electors, and those laws that do exist remain legally untested. Several states, too, have entered a compact that pledges their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but that agreement does not go into effect until enough states have signed on to wield a majority (they have 132 electoral votes with 9 states, including California and Illinois, signed on). It’s unlikely any state would step in to alter its electoral vote to avoid a tie, as it would require sending electors to vote for a candidate other than the one that won the vote in that state. Since the GOP takeover the House in 2010, Republicans hold a majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives, meaning a contingent election would likely end up electing Mitt Romney president. The Senate meanwhile, is held by Democrats and would presumably vote for Joe Biden in the case of a tie, making him the third vice president to serve under two presidents and keeping his path to 2016 open.
Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/06/what-happens-if-the-electoral-college-is
VM
How the Electoral College Works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw
The Trouble with the Electoral College: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
What If the Electoral College is Tied?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEDXzOfENI
The Trouble with the Electoral College: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
What If the Electoral College is Tied?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEDXzOfENI
Last edited by VMPhil on 6 November 2012 11:38pm
NJ
So say if it was 269 to 269? Then what would happen?
December 21st is hastened.
Seriously:
Such a result would be thrown to Congress, with each state’s House delegation being allowed to choose from among the top three vote getters in the electoral college. A third candidate could emerge without winning a state if a “faithless elector” decides to cast their vote for someone other than to whom they were pledged. Not all states have laws against faithless electors, and those laws that do exist remain legally untested. Several states, too, have entered a compact that pledges their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but that agreement does not go into effect until enough states have signed on to wield a majority (they have 132 electoral votes with 9 states, including California and Illinois, signed on). It’s unlikely any state would step in to alter its electoral vote to avoid a tie, as it would require sending electors to vote for a candidate other than the one that won the vote in that state. Since the GOP takeover the House in 2010, Republicans hold a majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives, meaning a contingent election would likely end up electing Mitt Romney president. The Senate meanwhile, is held by Democrats and would presumably vote for Joe Biden in the case of a tie, making him the third vice president to serve under two presidents and keeping his path to 2016 open.
Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/06/what-happens-if-the-electoral-college-is
Also, in the event of a tie - it is possible to have Mitt Romney as President and Joe Biden as VP. However, you cannot swap candidates and have Mitt Romney as President and Obama as VP.
Gaz, you should also note that all states (except two) operate the electoral college on a winner takes all basis, so once a majority is reached in a state for one candidate, they take all of the electoral college votes for that state.
That's why the "battleground states" are so important. In most states a clear majority in favour of one side is already known so the parties don't really bother campaigning there at all as it is too difficult to swing it to the other side.
That's why the "battleground states" are so important. In most states a clear majority in favour of one side is already known so the parties don't really bother campaigning there at all as it is too difficult to swing it to the other side.
So say if it was 269 to 269? Then what would happen?
December 21st is hastened.
Seriously:
Such a result would be thrown to Congress, with each state’s House delegation being allowed to choose from among the top three vote getters in the electoral college. A third candidate could emerge without winning a state if a “faithless elector” decides to cast their vote for someone other than to whom they were pledged. Not all states have laws against faithless electors, and those laws that do exist remain legally untested. Several states, too, have entered a compact that pledges their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but that agreement does not go into effect until enough states have signed on to wield a majority (they have 132 electoral votes with 9 states, including California and Illinois, signed on). It’s unlikely any state would step in to alter its electoral vote to avoid a tie, as it would require sending electors to vote for a candidate other than the one that won the vote in that state. Since the GOP takeover the House in 2010, Republicans hold a majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives, meaning a contingent election would likely end up electing Mitt Romney president. The Senate meanwhile, is held by Democrats and would presumably vote for Joe Biden in the case of a tie, making him the third vice president to serve under two presidents and keeping his path to 2016 open.
Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/06/what-happens-if-the-electoral-college-is
Also, in the event of a tie - it is possible to have Mitt Romney as President and Joe Biden as VP. However, you cannot swap candidates and have Mitt Romney as President and Obama as VP.
:-(
A former member
Nice to see BBC show running late to start...