The original mechanics of presidential elections were established by Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. In 1804 this clause was replaced by the 12th amendment because of election problems in 1786 and again in 1800.
The Electoral College system has many benefits and many believe it secures fairness, equality and truly reflects the will of the nation when electing a president. The Electoral College forces candidates to seek popular support over a majority of the country. Since a candidate cannot count on winning the election based solely on a heavy concentration of votes in a few areas, the Electoral College avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations, such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the even the Roman Empire! We all know what happened to the Roman Empire, we came close under Nero Clinton when wild orgies in the oval office were rampant. Thank God for term limits.
Since we are a federation of states it is important that each has an equal say on who becomes the next president. Therefore, the Electoral College ensures that the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the Federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically-equivalent, portion of a very populous state. You see what’s happening here? I will simplify it later so that even my friends on the left can understand.
In addition, to requiring a candidate to gain widespread support throughout the ENTIRE country and maintaining the federal character of the country there are other intrinsic values to the electoral college system. Many assert that minority groups have a greater voice under the system, that upon death of a candidate the electoral college can efficiently elect a suitable replacement in a timely manner, the current system strengthen the political party system and prevents extremist peripheral groups from gaining power, it isolates election problems to a particular state so it can be addressed and investigated, the system neutralizes the impact of voter turnout impacted by weather or hotly contested local races, and the electoral college upholds the premise of “separation of powers”
Ok here goes. How can a candidate win an election but lose the popular vote? Imagine that the United States was comprised of only 6 states with a population of 90 people and a Candidate needed 22 electoral votes to win an election.
Simply put:
State A Population = 25 Electorates = 10
State B Population = 25 Electorates = 10
State C Population = 10 Electorates = 6
Stated D Population = 10 Electorates = 6
State E Population = 10 Electorates = 6
State F Population = 10 Electorates = 6
Candidate A wins states A and B
Candidate W wins sates C, D, E, and F
Candidate A won 50 popular Votes and 20 electoral votes
Candidate W won 40 popular Votes and 24 electoral votes
Candidate W wins election! Now you are truly smarter than a 5th grader!
Therefore, according to our beloved Constitution, George W. Bush did not steal the 2000 election because he WON elections in 30 states compared to Al Bore’s 21. This gave the President 271 electoral votes beating Al’s 266.
Then in 2004, President Bush won the popular vote by 3, 012,499 votes and 31 states.
God Bless America!
2 comments:
Patriot.. you proved you're smarter than a fifth grader but less so than a sixth grader. Your elementary example is correct, your historical references are not.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote and would have won Florida had not the Supreme Court taken a POLITICAL stance. In fact, Justice O'Connor was quoted as saying that in no way could the court allow Gore to win: clearly a political, not a legal opinion. The 5-4 decision to annoint Bush denied the basic priciple that every vote should count.
The Electoral College is an anachronism. In fact, with technology existing, going to a popular vote would actually make every vote count. Here in NYC with an overwhelming Democratic mahority, the Republican votes would actually have meaning for a change. Likewise in Texas, Democrats would have a voice in the presidential election again.
EVERY area of the country would matter.
And if an overwhelmning majority live on the coasts (north, south, east, west) then their interests deserve attention.
Incidentally, Rome did not fall because of regional voting. They did not vote. DUH. Upon assumption of the Ceasars, the Senate was relegated to secondary status and conguered regions were ruled from Rome.
And as for Nero = Clinton. Please remember that Eisenhower had a girlfriend. Harding had a parade of girlfriends. Etc. So sexual escapades know no political party.
And as for Carter being the worst president. That is laughable. "W" will go down as one of the worst- all the way back to his relative Franklin Pierce... incompetence runs in that family.. and ruins this nation.
You still don't get it. It wasn't about who won the most states. It was about one candidate who had more votes in one state, and lost that state. Namely Florida.
But that was then. Now Curious George has done so much damage to the nation here and abroad that even his most beloved supporters are running away from him.
The sad part is I actually like John McCain but he now as to not just embrace George Bush, who he loathes since the dirty camapign the Bushies waged against him in SC in 2000, but embrace his legacy of fiscal irresponsibility, an extremely unpopular war, and just good old fanhion, absolute and utter incompetence.
Good luck to John Mccain trying to win in November, with mental midgets and draft dodgers like Tom Delays and Rush Limbaugh attacking him for not being conservative enough or as we like to say actually knowing how to run goverment as an adult and not a mentally challenged dittohead...
Mr. Mojo Risin.
Post a Comment