Electoral votes vs Popular votes...


PDA






Edward429451
July 14, 2004, 09:38 PM
Sorry if this sounds dumb, but can someone explain electoral votes to me? I'm probably wrong but from what I understand, the popular vote (peoples) does not (?) affect the electoral vote (which is the deciding factor in who gets elected.)

If that's so then the peoples vote means nothing?

Somebody set me straight on this puleeze!!:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Electoral votes vs Popular votes..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dbl0Kevin
July 14, 2004, 09:57 PM
The presidential election is done on a state to state basis. The popular vote is taken into account to see which candidate wins each state. The winner then gets all of that state's "electoral" votes. If I'm not mistaken it's the number of representatives the state has in the House. The candidate who gets to 271 electoral votes wins the election. Thus it's possible if there are major landslides in certain states and really tight ones in others that a candidate can win the presidency without winning the popular vote of the whole country as GW did in 2000.

Lone_Gunman
July 14, 2004, 10:00 PM
Each state has a certain number of electoral votes based on population.

The electoral votes are cast by "electors" who cast their vote, more or less, based on what the popular vote is.

I do not know who the "electors" are or how they are chosen.

The electoral votes are all that matter when it comes to deciding who will be president.

Bush actually had less people vote for him than Gore, but he still had the most electoral votes because he won a few key states (one being Florida).

jdkelly
July 14, 2004, 10:28 PM
Each state has a certain number of "electoral" votes based on that states population. I don't know how they figure it.

Now one might think that those "electoral" votes are awarded by the same percentage as the popular vote. 51% party A, 49% party B. But many states are winner take all. So 100% goes to party A and those who voted for party B are not counted at all.

This is the case in my state Massachusetts, where I think that the Republicans have received "electoral" votes twice in some 55 years.

The problem with this is that up to 49% of the people really don't have a say in who becomes president and the people care less about the process.

This reason that "winner takes all" is used, is that it gives the congressmen for that state more power if they "can handover*" a larger (all) the electoral votes.

While in most states (I think) the first round of votes must go to the party that the state has awarded. If there is a tie then all bets are off. On the other hand, in some states (I think) the votes don't have to go to the party that the state awarded it's vote to.

* Yes I know that the congressmen don't hand over the "electoral votes" but they help gather the votes "buy" campaigning.

If any one knows this better, and I'm sure you do, correct me please.


Respectfully,

jdkelly

Edward429451
July 14, 2004, 10:38 PM
The popular vote is taken into account to see which candidate wins each state.

OK, popular vote is taken into account. How? What's the nexus?

The electoral votes are cast by "electors" who cast their vote, more or less, based on what the popular vote is.

Again, Nexus?



The electoral votes are all that matter when it comes to deciding who will be president.

So how does the peoples (MINE!) vote count?

Bush actually had less people vote for him than Gore, but he still had the most electoral votes because he won a few key states (one being Florida).

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't get it. That don't even sound democratic, which is what they say they are! How can majority rule when the majority didn't decide the election?

Again, pardon my ignorance!:D

NukemJim
July 14, 2004, 10:46 PM
The number of electorial votes that each state hase equals the number of representives in the House of Represenatives and the number of senators ( 2 per state, regardless of size of state )

Actually the Electorial College was to get away from the popular vote. The way it was intended was for the people of a state to pick the members of the Electorial College and then they would vote for the presidency. Whoever got the largest number of votes would become president, the runner up would become vice-president.

This led to legislative logjams and presidents were not able to accomplish much so they modified the system so that the electors voted for both president and vicepresident on the same ticket.

NukemJim

PS all the canidates know this an plan their campaigns accordingly, otherwise they would only campaign in the most populous states and ignore the rest of the country.

Lone_Gunman
July 14, 2004, 10:48 PM
That don't even sound democratic



Thats right. The US is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. If you think back hard to jr high civics you will remember them telling you this is a constitutional republic. The media commonly portray the US as a democracy, but it is not.

Your vote counts only to the degree that it affects how the electors cast their votes.

The purpose of the electoral college is to keep large horrible terrible states , like California and New York, from dominating US politics.


At the time GWB was elected, I thought the electoral college was a great thing, because it kept Gore out of the White House. In retrospect, considering how disappointing the Bush presidency has been, I don't think it really mattered that much.

jfh
July 14, 2004, 10:53 PM
a word.

Edward429451
July 14, 2004, 11:05 PM
Actually the Electorial College was to get away from the popular vote. The way it was intended was for the people of a state to pick the members of the Electorial College and then they would vote for the presidency. Whoever got the largest number of votes would become president, the runner up would become vice-president.

So where's the ballot for electoral nominees? All I've ever seen was presidential candidates & senators & such.



Thats right. The US is not, nor has it ever been, a democracy. If you think back hard to jr high civics you will remember them telling you this is a constitutional republic. The media commonly portray the US as a democracy, but it is not.

Right right right. Guess I was a lil unclear there...(Which is what the say they are...)

<a word.>

What's the word?:D

jfh
July 14, 2004, 11:18 PM
a word.

kwelz
July 14, 2004, 11:24 PM
The electoral college is in place for a few reasons. FIrst though here is the nitty gritty. Each state is guaranteed 3 electoral votes no matter what the population. After this for so many thousands of people they get another. The reason they are guaranteed 3 is so that smaller states do not lose representation in the presidential elections. Something that you can have with large cities occurring in only a few states.

The 2000 elections are a prime example. Yes Bush lost the popular vote by a very small margin. However if you look at the number of counties and states won by Bush it is no comparison.
As you can see HERE (http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm) Bush won far more counties and states than Gore. 2436 to 676 to be exact. In some states he actually took every county. SOmething that Gore can not claim.

This is one of the main reasons behind the Electoral College and the reason I feel it should never be done away with. In a purely popular vote you have only the population centers fully represented. New York and California would basically control who won the presidency. Your "heartland" states would be left without adequate representation in national elections.

I hope this helps.

manwithoutahome
July 14, 2004, 11:37 PM
Maybe we should go with the Red/Blue issue.

Oregon was won by gore, yet there was more Red than Blue (Red=Bush, Blue=Gore).

Yet, the population in the areas that were Red was highly different than the Blue. So, Oregon should have voted Bush and not Gore. More countries voted Red than Blue.

And if you look at the map, Red (Bush) had more countries that voted for him, than Blue (gore).

So, if we change the way of voting, it should be based on the majority of counties and not the infested cities (all Blue) that determines the election.

But, as I understand it, being an Electoriate is like jury duty. You are summoned to be on the panel. It's not the rich, the lawmakers, etc.. that have an appointed position but normal people, like you and I, are chosen for the task.

When you are on the panel, you watch the votes of the people and you watch how each section is voting.

Then you cast your vote. That is why you see that one state may have 6 electorial votes but the state won for so and so with a vote of 4 to 2. Each vote is given to the wannabe so in that state, so and so picked up 4 votes (and is said on the news as "won" that state) and 2 is given to the other so and so. The first one to 217 "wins" unless there are more votes out there. If it is going to be close, then they continue, if it's not close (a blow out) then the media shows the winner because no matter how the other states vote, there is no way that the loser will catch up.

Why do the People vote, in order to get their electoriates to vote for whom they voted for. We just influence the election, we don't decide it.

This is the only time that this system is used. When you vote at local levels and at congress/senate levels, it's mob rule.

The people chosen for the electorial pool are secret, no one knows who they are and they cannot ever say who they were.

We are not and never have been a democratacy. We are a Replubic. Mob rule doens't work, we can see that with how people vote in California and New York. The people in upper NY and northern Cali. vote for those who will preserve freedom but the cities make the rules. That is why we have the people we have in office.

Wayne

Michigander
July 14, 2004, 11:41 PM
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the electors are decided by state law. Furthermore, whether a state's electoral votes are "winner take all" I believe are up to each state's laws. Also, some states have legislation that mandates the electors vote according to the popular vote of the state while other states do not mandate this. Historically though, I believe electors have only voted contrary to their respective popular vote a couple of times.

Here's some information: NARA Federal Register (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2000/index.html)

editted to add:

In Michigan, the State Board of Canvassers elects the Electors and they are certified by the Governor.

More info: Michigan Leglislature (http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-116-1954-IV) & An Executive Order related to the State Board of Canvassers (http://www.state.mi.us/e-mi/gov/eo/1994/1994-19.html)

Monkeyleg
July 14, 2004, 11:58 PM
Members of the Electoral college are chosen. Almost always they vote according the to vote tally in their areas.

Over the last 212 years there have been a few instances of "faithless electors," those who cast their ballots contrary to the number of votes cast in their particular jurisdictions.

As has been mentioned, the Electoral college system was devised so that the most populous states would not have an unfair advantage over less populated states.

It should be of concern to anyone who doubts the merits of the Electoral college that one of Hillary's first proposals as a US senator was to abolish the system.

Why?

Let's assume that Hillary is running for President (an assumption you can take to the bank in 2008). Absent the Electoral college system, she could concentrate on simply winning every vote she could get in NY and CA. She wouldn't have to campaign in another states at all. The votes from those two states would guarantee her the office.

The Founding Fathers recognized the perils that could arise from a republican form of government, and inserted safeguards.

It should come as no surprise that Hillary et al want to demolish those safeguards.

Jay Kominek
July 15, 2004, 01:24 AM
The Wikipedia has a description of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

El Rojo
July 15, 2004, 02:21 AM
The actual electors are now chosen by the parties. Basically the parties select electors that they know are trustworthy and people who want to the niftiness of saying they were an elector. Think of it like running the olympic torch, but all you have to do is donate some money or be a long time supporter.

So based off of your popular vote, the state goes to one party. That party then sends its electors to the state capital and they throw their ballots in the envelope and it is sent to the Capital in DC where they open up the envelopes and count up the electoral votes. 271 takes it.

There are a few plans that have been suggested to overhaul the electoral system. The most popular is the direct popular vote. The little states will never go for it. As is now the little states get one electoral vote for every 300,000 people, California gets one vote for every 800,000 people (the little state gets 3 votes[1 congressperson, 2 senators], California gets whatever we have plus 2 for our senators). The little states have too much to lose and it takes 75% of the states to amend the Constitution.

Another plan is to make the vote proportional. Eliminate the winner take all system and whatever percent of the state a candidate takes, they get that many electoral votes. So if it were 51% Kerry, 49% Bush in California, then Kerry would get 28 votes and bush would get say 27. As it stands now, Kerry would get 55 votes (don't quote me on the PRKs numbers). The problem with this system is you have to get a majority to win. With this reform you would probably have a good chance of forcing a tie with even the slightest third party involvement because if you don't get a majority 271 votes, the contest gets decided in the House of Representatives. You also have a problem in deciding this thing in the House. If a state's representatives do not make a unanamous decision (maybe it is only a majority) about who they want to vote for, their votes do not count. The voting occurs by state. So the California congresspeoples would get one vote and they have to all agree or their vote just doesn't get counted.

I forget what a the other plans are, but the most likely one to go through is the direct popular vote, but its odds are still way slim.

The link in Jay Kominek's post above mine has a good history of the origins of the Electoral College. Note that originally the states chose the electors and they actually got to vote for whoever they wanted. They had two votes and who ever got second was vice president. This was a problem because in 1796 Adams won, but his main opponent Jefferson was his vice president. That is why they changed it to the ticket system and the vice president now runs with the president.

4570Rick
July 15, 2004, 07:05 AM
Thank God for the Electoral College, otherwise New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Fransisco would control our lives.:what:

Firethorn
July 15, 2004, 07:50 AM
Electoral College Howto (http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm)

1: Number of Electoral College reps are Representatives + Senators (Always 2)
2: Electors are chosen by state law. Technically they could selected by lottery if the senate passed a law stating they'd be chosen that way. All are popular vote and except for Nebraska and Maine are winner takes all.


Edward429451, you have to remember that during the founding father's time the USA was a lot like the European Union is now. Just a few years before a number of the states had their own curriencies, standing armies, diplomats, etc. They were effectivly countries in their own right. The constitution bound them together into a larger state to present a united front to the outside world. This is why many of us americans like to yell at the EU, because we know what's going to happen, as the EU doesn't have as many controls on their power as we did, and look what happened to us? When did the POTUS overshadow your state's governer? When did selecting your US Senators (originally selected by state congress) and US Representatives become more important than selecting your own states?

They also had a mistrust of the 'common man'. Think about the witch-burning in Salem, all the things done to people who were 'unpopular'. Many of them came over to avoid the persecution by the majority back home. They wanted to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority' as much as possible while still preventing a tyranny of the minority.

I guess the idea was that the idiots would elect morons to the state congress, who would select somebody who was only dumb to be an elector, who would hopefully select a president with a brain!

Virtus
July 15, 2004, 12:15 PM
Yet another interesting historical tidbit is that there has been at least one proposal to abandon the electoral college introduced in every single Congress. All 108 of them. In aggregate, there have been around 700 attempts in Congress to either abolish or reform the Electoral College. Thomas Jefferson actually called the Electoral College, "the most dangerous blot in our Constitution."

If you think Bush/Gore was bad, look into the Tilden/Hays election. That battle lasted into January and required the appointment of a special commission.

Also, if you look at the electoral total from the 2000 election you will find the latest instance of a "faithless elector." Gore ended up with one less electoral vote than he won. One of the electors from DC abstained as a protest against DC's lack of a vote in Congress.

twoblink
July 15, 2004, 01:11 PM
Remember, the electors can pick whomever they want, and so it could be that you assume someone is going to win, but they don't... because the electors are known as "faithless"..

Thank God for electoral colleges..

otherwise, the only campaigning would be done in only 5 states:

California
New York
Mass.
Ill.
Texas
and maybe Florida

The rest of the country would get zero representation..

MrAcheson
July 15, 2004, 02:56 PM
Some states do not use the winner take all system. They use congressional districts or counties to decide who takes what. So the winner of the district gets its electoral vote, etc...

fix
July 15, 2004, 03:04 PM
What twoblink said. California and New York would be running the Executive Office within 10 years, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks.

OF
July 15, 2004, 03:26 PM
Also, the states created the federal gov't and it serves not really at the whim of the people as individuals, but of the their states as individual sovereign entities. The states choose the feds. As was said, there are many safeguards in our republic preventing the people from controlling anything too important through direct elections. And a good thing too.

A good time to announce my new 'voter registration program', along the lines of the 'rock the vote' theme: "Stay Home You Ignorant Moron"

- Gabe :)

Werewolf
July 15, 2004, 03:41 PM
[opens a can of gasoline and tosses it onto the fire]

Lots of right answers here which is indeed gratifying to an old fart like myself.

BUT the number of duh/BS answers is disheartening indeed and makes me wonder if Civics/Government is still a required course in high schools these days.

If this thread and the thread starter are any indication - probably not!

And people wonder why this county is being over run by SHEEP!

BigG
July 15, 2004, 04:08 PM
I'm afraid CIVICS has gone the way of the vinyl record and eight track tape. So much for public ediccation - makes for good little socialist workers, Werewolf.:(

Frohickey
July 15, 2004, 04:37 PM
Gore ended up with one less electoral vote than he won. One of the electors from DC abstained as a protest against DC's lack of a vote in Congress.

What do you call the person getting the 2nd most electoral votes?











LOSER. :D

Edward429451
July 15, 2004, 04:58 PM
OK I'm starting to get it now! I still have some more reading to do from the links, probably finish tonight after work..

And Uh, Werewolf, since this is kind of confusing and it's so obvious to you that people have parts of it wrong, perhaps you could expound on the issue a little bit for everyones benefit instead of just basically calling us all dumb.

So I skipped civics class. I want to learn now though.:)

Northslope Nimrod
July 15, 2004, 05:04 PM
I didn't read every post but here's my 2 cents. The electoral process was inspired! The president and candidates could ignore small states in a popular vote...and would be crazy to spend any time campaigning in small states. You get more bang for your buck if you stick to New York, Las Angelas, Chicago, etc. That process would guarantee that our president would be chosen by "BIG CITY FOLK" who are generally liberal.
The electoral process guarantees that we "SMALL TOWN FOLK" have a say.....and protects us from being railroaded by presidential policies during their terms.
Thus, it means nothing that Bush lost the popular vote......HE WASN'T CAMPAIGNING FOR THE POPULAR VOTE! The campaign would only be held in large metropolitan (liberal infested) areas if that were the case!

Frohickey
July 15, 2004, 05:25 PM
The more I read about the electoral college, the more I like it. The Founding Fathers really knew what they were doing.

dadman
July 15, 2004, 05:34 PM
Do not get rid of the Electoral College! Keep it.
It's there as a check and balance against mob rule, a buffer.
Article II Section I of the US Constitution and Amendment XII explains the Elector process.

Do a search on the Electoral College/Electors.

During the last Presidential election, this subject came up some other boards. At the time, I was ignorant of the pros and cons. Now, I'm a believer and supportor of the Electors process.
We're supposed to be a Republic. Keep it.

Werewolf
July 15, 2004, 05:40 PM
[fanning the flames]

And Uh, Werewolf, since this is kind of confusing and it's so obvious to you that people have parts of it wrong, perhaps you could expound on the issue a little bit for everyones benefit instead of just basically calling us all dumb.Check out the wikipedia link posted by Jay Kominek in a previous post. It does an excellent job of explaining exactly how the electoral process works. The only thing the article left out of any significance is that in most states the electors are bound by state law to vote for their pledged candidate. Federal law doesn't bind an elector to any candidate. It would be interesting to see how a state would proceed against an elector who did not vote for his/her pledged candidate.

So I skipped civics class. I want to learn now though.A laudable goal to be sure but my point is that YOU NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPTION TO SKIP CIVICS CLASS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

How can anyone be expected to make qualified decisions regarding our government and choose those who are expected to run it without knowing how our government actually works?

ANSWER: They can't and that's a huge part of the problem with our country today. Many people have no clue regarding the freedoms they don't enjoy that their parents did because schools these days don't bother to teach government or even to do a very good job teaching history. Folks today just don't know what they don't know and most don't care to know that they don't know. AND THAT'S OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!

Frohickey
July 15, 2004, 06:31 PM
I think that NOT ONLY should you take Civics class, but said Civics class should be held prior to rifle marksmanship class. :p :D ;)

That would certainly drive the point home that politicians are in office only at the citizen's sufferance.

That, and an extra credit class on how to properly tar and feather a politician.

Monkeyleg
July 15, 2004, 07:47 PM
Werewolf, please elaborate. If I was wrong in my post, I sure want to know about it.

Werewolf
July 15, 2004, 08:46 PM
My purpose was not to point the finger at any individual (except possibly the original poster) but to point out the poor state of our educational system re: how government operates.

Those folks talking from a minimum understanding of the system or no understanding know who they are just as those who got it right know who they are.

Monkeyleg asked:
Werewolf, please elaborate. If I was wrong in my post, I sure want to know about it.And why would you believe that my post was directed at you? Your post is a very general posit that makes no factual errors. Your take on the why the electoral system was created is common and generally agreed upon except by radical revisionists who believe the founding fathers were elitist racists. They believe the electoral system was set up the way it was for an entirely different reason i.e. to keep the power in the hands of rich, property owning, white men (and there may very well be a smidgen of truth to that when one considers who the founding fathers were, there stations in life and their professions).

Frohickey
July 15, 2004, 09:32 PM
Just because you don't have an interest in politics, does not mean that politics doesn't have an interest in you.

JPL
July 15, 2004, 09:50 PM
"Thank God for electoral colleges..

otherwise, the only campaigning would be done in only 5 states:

California
New York
Mass.
Ill.
Texas
and maybe Florida"

Take Massachusetts out of there and put in Pennsylvania, which has double the number of electoral votes.

Ohio also has far more EVs than Mass.


Here's the page from the Federal Elections Commmission on the electoral college:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

twoblink
July 15, 2004, 11:02 PM
What do you call the person getting the 2nd most electoral votes?

Correction: FIRST PLACE LOSER!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am actually trying to get an electorial college system here in Taiwan. I'm probably the sole lobbiest for it here; because most don't understand.

I have to admit, because when I was in high school, I was a JSA nerd (Junior Statesman of America) I actually know politics.

I'm not sure people should be allowed to vote when they don't understand the political system under which they'd vote.

That's why you see a bunch of morons carrying "Gore's the real winner".. Signs.. People who have no clue what an electorial college is, and the purpose of it.

I explain to every one of my students here in Taiwan the system in America, and why it was superior to the popular vote.. After the joke election that was Taiwan, people started to consider the county electoriate system...

Monkeyleg
July 15, 2004, 11:42 PM
Werewolf: "And why would you believe that my post was directed at you? Your post is a very general posit that makes no factual errors."

Because I often make mistakes. ;)

WilderBill
July 15, 2004, 11:47 PM
I like Frohickey's idea!
It seems like most of the .gov's schools are mainly interested in keeping kids from cutting class and keeping them from harming each other when they are there.
Teaching them how government really works might be troublesome.

For my part, I'd like to see electoral votes assigned by county. :cool:

DRZinn
July 16, 2004, 01:02 AM
If you think back hard to jr high civics you will remember them telling you this is a constitutional republic.

Sadly, not the case anymore. When I was going through jr high, even elementary school, even high school, the word was that "We live in a democracy, isn't it great to live in a democracy." etc etc ad nauseum.

I graduated from high school in 1995.

El Rojo
July 16, 2004, 01:58 AM
Hopefully by Mid-August I will be a government/history teacher in a public high school. Everyone pray, and pray hard! I want that job! When I did some student teaching in May, this is exactly what we covered so it is still fresh in my mind.

another okie
July 16, 2004, 10:24 AM
There are several organizations that will give you a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution.

One benefit of the Electoral College is that it limits the effect of fraud. The Chicago machine can steal all the votes they want, and it only affects the Illinois electoral votes. If we had a national popular vote, the incentive to steal votes would be much greater.

I used to think the Electoral College was irrational; now I understand that it is part of the founders' plan to make sure we are not subject to irrational whims of a temporary and shifting majority. In fact, I'd like to see us go back to indirect election of Senators, as the Constitution originally provided. They were selected by the state legislatures.

JPL
July 16, 2004, 10:40 AM
"One benefit of the Electoral College is that it limits the effect of fraud. The Chicago machine can steal all the votes they want, and it only affects the Illinois electoral votes."

Oh?

Read up on the election of 1960.

It's widely believed that the corruption in Chicago gave the race to John Kennedy instead of Richard Nixon.

Frohickey
July 16, 2004, 02:05 PM
I don't think electoral college votes via county would work since not all Congressional districts are based by county.

I think your idea would have been electoral college votes via Congressional districts. While the idea has merit, the problem is that it is redundant. Congressional districts votes for who they send for Congressional representation in the House. If you have EC votes via congressional districts, some wiseguy is gonna say why not just have the Congressmen vote for the president, which would add another layer of insulation from the voters, and in essence, abolishing the EC.

jefnvk
July 16, 2004, 04:40 PM
A laudable goal to be sure but my point is that YOU NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAD THE OPTION TO SKIP CIVICS CLASS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Fresh out of high school, at least in Michigan you don't have the option of skipping civics (now called Government). The problem becomes that we had two levels of government. .2 and .4, with .4 being the advanced, and .2 being a base level calss. No .3. If you take .4, you devote the semester to THAT class. Unless you are really into government, that is not for you. With .2, you get everyone else that has little or no interest in government. You get a spread of students that range from top-10% to kids that cannot wait until their 16th bday to drop out of school. I seriously tried to learn in that class. The pace is so slow and so much was skipped in just getting through the required portion of the cirriculum. My exam grade was over 130%, because the teacher had to apply a curve, or else 4 kids would have passed the class.

I now wish I had taken the harder class.

As for the electoral college thing, I think it needs to go partly on geographical area. When the blues are simply scattered around where there is big cities, and the rest of the map is red, that is making a statement. As for those who say the majority should rule, I say that 103 million people voted. With a population reaching 300 million, 1/6 said that Gore should win, 1/6 said that Bush should win.

tyme
July 17, 2004, 12:59 AM
Teaching them how government really works might be troublesome.
Yeah, wilderbill. The students might riot. :)

c_yeager
July 17, 2004, 07:09 AM
Ignorance is the mightiest weapon any totalitarian government could possible have. It's a tad disquieting to see that its already starting to be used in our schools. Honestly CIVICS is a far more important class than about %80 of what i learned in highschool (cause you know i use TRIG every single day :rolleyes: )

Edward429451
July 18, 2004, 05:02 PM
Lots of good info at the links. I have a real good handle on it now I think. Too bad i felt like politics is only for the politicians when I was young...

At least the EC sysytem is in place. I can see how it'd be different if it wasn't.

I kind of feel like I let my countrymen down by not taking a greater interest in government before now. The shape the country is in it seems like civics should be started in kiddiegarten, reasonably, to let them start getting a handle on it sooner rather than later.

The Libertarian vote was squat and appears to have the effect of thrown away votes though. Doesn't make the voting choice any easier. The lesser of two worms still leaves us with a worm either way we go. No way will I vote for Kerry and Bush doesn't wxactly get me excited either. Still I gotta vote though.

El Rojo, Good luck with your teaching position. Precarious position there. If you stray from the curriculem and speak the truth, they may come after you and cause you trouble. And yet...if you don't, you're being their pawn and working for them. Sounds like a tightrope walk. Again, good luck with it.

Who's bright idea was it to let the cia run the schools?:uhoh:

Thanks to all who responded to Edward429451's remedial civics question!

Odin26
July 18, 2004, 06:59 PM
I just joined this board 2 days ago and I'm glad I found it (by accident).

Good luck to anyone who wants to teach civics/government to this group of stundents coming up through school. There's a culture of ignorance out there and it takes someone to really really pound on it to make a dent.

I read twoblink post about some sort of EC system in Taiwan. I wouldn't bet on it. I think the US is the only representaive nation in the world with a system like this one.

The Electorial College just proves that the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress and the Consitutual Convention had the most concentrated brain power in one room until the Manhatten Project

Matthew Courtney
July 19, 2004, 12:10 AM
I am 37. I spent the past 4 years getting certified to teach economics and government to sophmores. I will teach the truth. If a quarter million of my bretheren will join me, this battle will be won without a shot being fired.

The problem is that to many would rather complain about the quality and politics of educators, rather than becoming educators and fixing the problem.

another okie
July 19, 2004, 03:10 PM
JPL, I don't think you read my post carefully. I said stealing votes in Illinois can only affect the Illinois electoral votes, and that's true. I didn't say that the Illinois electoral votes can't be stolen, and that the Illinois electoral votes can't be the decisive margin. It's not a magic pill.

If we had a national popular vote, every vote stolen in Illinois would go directly into the total, and there would be an incentive to steal as many as possible. And there would be an incentive to steal votes everywhere, not just in states where the totals are close. As it is, once they have stolen enough votes to win in their own state, there is no incentive to steal any more in that state. And in states where the winner is going to be pretty obvious, there is no incentive to steal at all.

If you enjoyed reading about "Electoral votes vs Popular votes..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!