Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 3

The United States
In this article, The United States of America is always reffered to as The United States, and seeming as how there are more than one country in the world beginning with The United States (i.e. of Mexico), I feel that America should be added to all of these. Perhaps I am being overly nitpicky, but it is language like this that promotes American imperialism and superiority little by little. It is a very small example of imperialism through language, but just the assumption that The United States always reffers to America denotes some kind of superiority over other United States. I am new with Wikipedia, and I am not familiar with the strictness of language (this is an encyclopedia after all; I hope it is trying to eliminate the use racist/sexist/imperialist language) so I have not made these changes myself, but would like to see them made. thanks

Well I'm not an American, but, ipso facto when somebody speaks of the United States, he means the USA. There is no imperialism, just language custom. (sorry for my English, it's not my first language)

what you say might make sense in languages other than english, but the thing is... in english, the united states only refers to the united states of america. or to put it a different way, mexico is called, strikinly enough, mexico, and not the united states of mexico, although that might be its proper name. (see what i mean, i didn't need to write the united states of mexico for you to understand me, i only needed to write mexico...) Fufthmin

If an election is thrown into the House...
Hello,

"If no person wins a majority of electoral votes for President, the House of Representatives (the one elected at the same time as the vote for President, not the old one) then votes to decide who shall become the next President from among the top three candidates. In so voting, the representatives of each state cast a single block vote, and all state votes count equally, independent of the population of the states."

Question: How would that actually work? It's easy enough for Wyoming, but what about states with more than one rep? Do all reps from a certain state have to agree, or is it the majority of the reps from one state that would determine that state's vote? And would it have to be the absolute majority, or just the relative majority? What if there was a tie among the reps from one state? -- 84.57.2.21 22:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's based on the majority of the reps prevailing - in 2000 I recall commentators predicting that if there was no majority (if for instance Florida did not send electors in time) then it might go to the House where the Republicans controlled the majority of delegations. No idea on a tie, though that may explain the 36 ballots in 1800 (although doesn't it also need a weighted majority?).


 * I agree it's messy - it's clear that they were trying to reproduce the "equal votes for each state" & "votes based on population" combination for Congress, but had to put the House with the former option as the electors had taken the latter. Yet another support for the "this was never properly thought through" school of historians! Timrollpickering 22:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Minimum threshold to win?
In theory a candidate could win the election by receiving only 23% of all popular votes, if these were distributed in an ideal way (if the states were sorted by rising number of population he or she would have to gain the electoral votes in all states in the range from Wyoming to Virginia by 50%+1 of all votes including the exception of Maine and Nebraska were nearly all votes would be necessary).

I see the point being explained, but aren't all the states done on the basis of a plurality not a majority? So if there were four candidates in each state, each polling 25% of the vote, and the same candidate was ahead (perhaps by as little as 1 vote more than each of the others) in sufficient states, would that not drastically reduce the total votes needed to win? Timrollpickering 13:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a real good consideration, I didn't think of this possibility. The paragraph needs to be rephrased.

btw, this was the calculation I used US electorate Doppelzoo 17:00, 21 Sep 2004 (CET)


 * I think the 23 % number is wrong. I calculated what percentage of the population the 40 smallest states representing an e college majority was and got 45%.


 * With plurality wins, there is no minimum threshold. But the states you have to win can make up, at a minimum, 45% of the pop. dinopup

--

I had assumed you had an Electoral College to pick the President because things could change between the Electors setting out, and them arriving.

I could have said Absence of Penicillin .... which would be one of the conditions predisposing to change in that way.

But now there is a telephone in every town, perhaps that odd system can be tidied up.

UK -- I don't think we have the same thing. We elect a party and the party chooses its leader, the leader might change soon after an election, but only through death or incapacity, so we know who the PM is going to be per party.


 * It isn't too different from the US system. In the UK, the party chooses a leader and you elect a party.  In the US, the party chooses a leader and you select the leader - which implies a party.  It is still partisan voting. Kainaw 13:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * But in America, the legislature doesn't choose the executive, that fact is the essence of the British system. (note, in the Virginia Plan Madison wanted the House to choose the pres, so we almost became a parliamentary system)


 * Walter Bagehot compares the English system and the US electoral college in the English Constitution. He considers the English system to be the fulfillment of what the Foundign Fathers actually wanted - a deliberative body.  Along which much else in our system of government, Bagehot considered the electoral college to be absurd.dinopup


 * Or one could say that the American system, with its separate and co-equal branches, is the fulfillment of what the Founding Fathers wanted, namely a republicanized version of the English system before it collapsed into the monocratic rule of a Prime Minister and the Crown (executive) and Lords became mere advisory bodies. Pgva 20:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Electors - who are they ... really - how do they get the job
Can anyone explain who they are and how they get the job - maybe a real name example?


 * First, sign your comments/questions so it isn't so cold and anonymous. Second, there is no federal law about how to select electors.  So, the states do it however they like.  Most states have a state party convention select them.  A few have a state party committee select them.  I'm in South Carolina, so I can give you an example from here.  It is a mostly Republican state and will likely vote Republican.  Assuming it does, the state's Republican party will get 8 trusted Republicans to go to Washington DC and vote Republican.  By state law, if they decide to vote for someone like Nader or Homer Simpson, they will be prosecuted.  Because they are acting in a robotic way - just going through the motions they are required by law to go through - it doesn't matter if it is me or the guy who lives under the bridge by the interstate who votes.  So, they don't make a big deal out of advertising the names of each elector. Kainaw 13:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Guaranteed 2?
For district voting (e.g., Maine and Nebraska)... As previously noted, the winner in those two states is only guaranteed two electoral votes,

The winner must win at least one district in addition to the two corresponding to Senate seats. Hence, the wniner is guaranteed three electoral votes.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


 * I think you're right if there are only two candidates. With three, couldn't a candidate win a state 40:30:30 while losing every district (say, 20:30:0 and 20:0:30 in a two-district state)? Josh Cherry 01:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i konw that poeple do feel this way but in y heart of hearts i know that it is not true thatb he said that. THere is enough information to abck my assertions up.

Love alway yours  truly                                                 and one and on

lily