The main party leaders have all cast their votes in the general election.
.
Follow us on twitter at http://twitter.com/itn_news .
Duration : 0:1:50
This clip is a portion of the Documentary called “Hacking Democracy.” The video represents a similar situation during the May 10, 2010 Philippine Elections. This video does not intend to accuse any Candidate of election fraud but to shed light on how election results can be manipulated to favor those who can afford. Perhaps this can help open the minds of the Filipino people to the vulnerabilities of Automated Elections in an unfortunately corrupt country.
You can visit my Channel and watch on my “favorite’s” list the Documentary of “Hacking Democracy” or you can watch it at http://www.freedocumentaries.org/int.php?filmID=234 and click the “watch film now” tab.
Duration : 0:9:59
I have been curious about the presidential elections and I was wondering. Each state has a certain amount of electoral votes, California having the most. What is the smallest number of states a candidate could win to become president? You need 270 electoral votes.
You figure it out. This shows the states and how many electoral vote each has:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5
During the 2000 election, Al gore lost because he didn’t have enough electoral votes but he had more popular votes.
Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, U.S. citizens cast votes for electoral college representatives, known as electors. While electors are theoretically free to vote for the candidate of their choice, in practice they pledge to vote for specific candidates.Thus, voters indirectly vote for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors Because all of the electors from a state will generally vote for the Presidential candidate that receives the most votes in that state, U.S. Presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.
The Electoral College is composed of 538 electors. Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Additionally, the District of Columbia is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College.
Each elector casts two votes: one for President and one for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a 270-vote majority of the Electoral College. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the House of Representatives.
Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.
The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. Although not originally the case in a majority of states, at present, 48 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-take-all popular vote rule –– voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes in the state wins the support of all of that state’s electors. Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote. Because the vast majority of electors are chosen by a statewide vote, U.S. Presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous first past the post elections, rather than a single national election.
Candidates with less than a plurality of the nationwide popular vote can win a Presidential election. This has happened on several occasions in American history. Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.
At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan used as the basis for discussions called for the Executive to be elected by the Legislature. Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the Office of the President. Though some delegates preferred popular election, the committee’s proposal was approved, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787
In the Federalist Papers No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. The Congress would have two houses, one state-based (Senate) and the other population-based (House of Representatives) in character, while the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes, giving some electoral power to the states and some to the people in general. Both the Congress and the President would be elected by mixed state-based and population-based means.
All this means that when you vote this November you’re not voting for a particular canidate, a electors that will vote for him at the Electoral College in December. . Now whichever canidate wins in a particular state that canidate wins all that states electors. The first one to get 271 elector wins the election. Currently all one has to do is to winn 11 key states
McCain’s votes were ridiculously high compared to the other Republican candidates in the primaries, as compared to the similar amount of votes Democratic candidates Obama and Clinton had.
Won’t it be detrimental for the Democratic party to have all Democrat votes dispersed among two candidates whereas most Republican votes are toward McCain? Is this not a shoe-in for a Republican candidate to take the presidency?
If you are likely to be rude, offensive or ignorant in your argument to this question, then please don’t respond.
The vote happens in two stages. Currently, we are doing the Primaries. McCain may indeed win his party nomination, but that doesn’t win the Presidency. When the Primary’s are finally over (we are only half way there); then we’ll start the General Election. We vote in November for this. When the General Election is running, EACH party will only have ONE candidate. This includes the Republicans, Democrats, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, and any other major US party that I may not of remembered.
So… no…. the current race will not favor McCain.
I did a scenario through Yahoo’s political dashboard in which neither Obama or McCain got a full 270 votes but all the states were represented. I think Obama had a few more but it did not reach the target. What would happen in this case?
The only way that happens is if they both get 269. All 538 electoral votes will be allocated. In the event of a tie, the House of Representatives decides, with each state getting one vote.
How many electors does obama and mccain have each? Is there a third party candidate with electors in 2008?
I’m trying to understand something. Does each state only have electors with pledges to one of the candidates? And then does each citizen vote for either of the candidates and the most votes in that state either wins all the elector votes in that state or none are won towards the candidates total?
You’re mixing up the primaries and the general election.
In the primaries, each citizen votes, and then a delegate who represents a particular district has to vote the same way as a majority of the voters in that district. Delegate votes are "pledged." There are also superdelegates, who do not have to listen to any voters.
In the general election, there is the electoral college. Whichever candidate gets the majority of votes in each state gets all of that state’s electoral votes, which equal the number of representatives that state has plus 2.
Get Involved: http://voteforachange.co.uk/HangEmVid
Find out how you can cast your vote for a hung parliament using our new online tool. Make sure to share it with your friends so they’ll vote for a change too: http://voteforachange.co.uk/HangEmVid
Duration : 0:0:31
I’m curious as to how many individual votes of those cast did President-Elect Obama receive in the 2008 presidential election.
Obama won the 2008 presidential election with 66.760,924 votes, winning the popular vote
In the electoral college he took 365/270 required to win the election
Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com