Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Finally: free and fair presidential elections are a reality in our democracy. WASHINGTON — The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.
So the left can change the laws of their state, and the EC agents will be voting according to what the laws of their state direct. Don't get too excited yet.
What is the rationale for “winner gets all the electoral votes” in most of the states? Just curious. I assume that’s one of the reasons a third political party would never get much traction nationally.
It didn't address that and it remains a stale issue. It didn't address Maine or Nebraska either, which do not follow a state-wide popular vote either. It simply said that it is constitutional for states to require electors to follow the state-wide popular vote. Most states do not require electors to do so at all, although it's accepted practice that they're supposed to.
I haven't read the opinion. What does that mean? Electors can be punished for voting for a candidate other than the one they are pledged to? Or does the state government somehow cast the (non-)electors' votes for them?
would trump have won if electoral college had voted with the popular vote?
someone gimme the facts
I don't think this decision would have made any practical difference in any of the elections of the last several decades at least (probably none ever). The closest one was Bush v Gore, and there were no rogue electors that time I believe.
Finally: free and fair presidential elections are a reality in our democracy. WASHINGTON — The 538 people who cast the actual votes for president in December as part of the Electoral College are not free agents and must vote as the laws of their states direct, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Most of us don't agree wit the electoral college, but at least now the electors can no longer go rogue and overturn elections just because they feel like it.
would trump have won if electoral college had voted with the popular vote?
someone gimme the facts
Nationally, Clinton received about 3 million more votes than Trump did. If the US held a national plebiscite for president, Clinton would have won.
But the US does not hold a national plebiscite for president. And it's a known bug/feature of the Electoral College system that the winning candidate can win the office with fewer votes than the losing candidate. This has happened before.
As long as we vote for president by state, this will remain true. So no, unless we get rid of state-by-state voting, I don't think she would have won.
States are assigned electoral votes based on their population. The allocation is adjusted following the national census, which occurs every 10 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
