[QUOTE=Badballer;38324594]Can someone explain to me popular vote? I'm confused about how presidents are elected.[/QUOTE]Presidents are elected based off the Electoral College, which is basically a group of delegates assigned to each state based on its Congressional representation. These delegates (538 of them), all cast their votes for which of the candidates they prefer and whoever receives the most wins the presidency.
The popular vote is the voting of the entire populace (or the portion that chooses to vote, anyway) for who they want for president. The popular vote ultimately has no authority to decide the winner however. At most, it just tells the delegates from a particular state how the people want them to vote in the Electoral College. For the most part, its an all-or-none set up where a candidate gets all the votes from a state, regardless of how the the popular vote was divided in that state. There are some cases where a delegate though will vote against how they are pledged.
[editline]5th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=laserguided;38324696]How exactly is that calculated.[/QUOTE]Nate Silver's work is very good.
[QUOTE=Badballer;38324594]Can someone explain to me popular vote? I'm confused about how presidents are elected.[/QUOTE]
Popular vote means nothing in the election. That is straight just how many votes for each person. Presidents are elected through the electoral College. Essentially each state is worth so many "representatives" based on their population (so places like California are worth a lot) and whoever has the most votes in that state, takes ALL the representatives, even if they only won by 0.1%. Whichever candidate has the most representatives in the end becomes president. This is why there are "swing states". A lot of states historically vote red or vote blue, but some state go back and forth, and so winning these can tip the odds in your favor.
Some states are moving away from the winner takes all system, which is kinda controversial right now. In those states each candidate gets representatives proportionally to how many votes they receive in that state.
Hope that helps.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38324749]Presidents are elected based off the Electoral College, which is basically a group of delegates assigned to each state based on its Congressional representation. These delegates (538 of them), all cast their votes for which of the candidates they prefer and whoever receives the most wins the presidency.
The popular vote is the voting of the entire populace (or the portion that chooses to vote, anyway) for who they want for president. The popular vote ultimately has no authority to decide the winner however. At most, it just tells the delegates from a particular state how the people want them to vote in the Electoral College. For the most part, its an all-or-none set up where a candidate gets all the votes from a state, regardless of how the the popular vote was divided in that state. There are some cases where a delegate though will vote against how they are pledged.
[editline]5th November 2012[/editline]
Nate Silver's work is very good.[/QUOTE]
Wait a second, the actual vote of the people has no bearing on who'll become president beyond being a [I]suggestion[/I]?
That's absurd.
Well the delegates are kinda a farse. Its really based on the votes within the state.
[QUOTE=monkey11;38324777]Well the delegates are kinda a farse. Its really based on the votes within the state.[/QUOTE]Ultimately that's how electors are supposed to vote is based on how the people in the state voted but when you take in to consideration things such as electors voting against their pledge, all-or-none awarding, some states getting more electors than they should have for a fair distribution and other states getting less, it really just degrades the entire thing. And ultimately, you can win the popular vote and still lose the electoral college, which means you lose the election anyway as was the case with Bush vs. Gore.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38324796]Ultimately that's how electors are supposed to vote is based on how the people in the state voted but when you take in to consideration things such as electors voting against their pledge, all-or-none awarding, some states getting more electors than they should have for a fair distribution and other states getting less, it really just degrades the entire thing. And ultimately, you can win the popular vote and still lose the electoral college, which means you lose the election anyway as was the case with Bush vs. Gore.[/QUOTE]
Thus why I said within the state. In my first post I adressed winner takes all voting, and I have never really heard of electors voting against their state.
However I am all for abolishing the electoral college. Very poorly designed system starting to show its age.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;38324763]Wait a second, the actual vote of the people has no bearing on who'll become president beyond being a [I]suggestion[/I]?
That's absurd.[/QUOTE]
I know how I complain a lot about candidates in the Brazillian election, but, hey, at least my vote matters as much as the next guy's vote, instead of this stupid concept that has swing states.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;38324749]Presidents are elected based off the Electoral College, which is basically a group of delegates assigned to each state based on its Congressional representation. These delegates (538 of them), all cast their votes for which of the candidates they prefer and whoever receives the most wins the presidency.
The popular vote is the voting of the entire populace (or the portion that chooses to vote, anyway) for who they want for president. The popular vote ultimately has no authority to decide the winner however. At most, it just tells the delegates from a particular state how the people want them to vote in the Electoral College. For the most part, its an all-or-none set up where a candidate gets all the votes from a state, regardless of how the the popular vote was divided in that state. There are some cases where a delegate though will vote against how they are pledged.
[editline]5th November 2012[/editline]
Nate Silver's work is very good.[/QUOTE]
This is precisely why I do not vote.
Who's to say one of these delegates says "You know what. Fuck the guy you voted for, I want Obama / Romney in." Your vote matter? Haha. Dream world. The people have zero say in who becomes president. Which is sad, and honestly, goes against the core values of this country. How it is even in place is a joke. For the people by the people my ass.
It is not a legitimate voting system and there for I do not support it.
However, for local issues, I will gladly vote. As popular vote does matter. Like it should.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;38325143]Who's to say one of these delegates says "You know what. Fuck the guy you voted for, I want Obama / Romney in."[/QUOTE]
It's possible in theory but in practice it's not really a problem--there's a tacit agreement in those circles that they like how the process works and they want it to continue working. If electors up and started fudging elections there would be a massive public outcry and the system would probably be dumped, and the electors and the people who choose them are too invested in it to let that happen.
But even if it wasn't so institutionalized, the slim possibility of some electors voting the wrong way doesn't seem like a very good reason to not vote at all.
How the fuck are certain states 'republican' or 'democrat'... do people not even consider the policies being discussed before voting?
Brainwashed idiots voting for the people their brainwashed idiot parents told them to vote for.
[editline]5th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=HkSniper;38325143]The people have zero say in who becomes president. Which is sad, and honestly, goes against the core values of this country. How it is even in place is a joke. For the people by the people my ass.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't seem like the people do anyway, if there's only two choices...
It's like, if you live in one of the 'republican states' and you're a rational guy with a high degree of creativity, free-thinking and intelligence, and you vote for democrats (or an underdog) because something in their policy caught your eye - it's worth nothing.
Your vote is void, worth as much as Joe Soap's who cares nothing for politics but doesn't want 'the black guy' to win.
Great system!
It's not void, the popular vote is still tallied, and a president who fails to win the popular vote is often seen as lacking legitimacy.
The electoral college is a lame system because it's a holdover from the days before cars and electricity and trains, when collecting all the individual votes for a central tally would have presented a huge logistical challenge. Nowadays it's not great, but it's been more or less working as intended. If it were to fail in the way that a lot of people in this thread are suggesting, it would attract a lot of critical attention and possibly even be scrapped. So it definitely has a line to walk.
And like HkSniper said, there's still a lot of local and state stuff to vote for that doesn't use the electoral college system, so that's hardly a reason not to vote at all regardless.
[QUOTE=legolover122;38319033]I move to canada as soon as possible.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry bro, it'll fuck our economy up too.
[QUOTE=i-am-teh-sex;38319334]There's not even that many people on earth
But Romney'll find a way[/QUOTE]
Chances are that he will ban abortion... So yeah...
[QUOTE=gokiyono;38326601]Chances are that he will ban abortion... So yeah...[/QUOTE]
more specifically, he'll have 2 supreme court nominations which would easily flip the court against roe vs. wade.
Sebato's predictions are in the same thinking. Last time he published predictions Romney was favored, but no longer.
[url]http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/projection-obama-will-likely-win-second-term/[/url]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38325359]How the fuck are certain states 'republican' or 'democrat'... do people not even consider the policies being discussed before voting?
[/QUOTE]
Somebody who frequently votes democrat/republican may do so because the candidates have a strong tenancy to support ideals that said voter stands for. There's obviously a distinct policy pattern between continuous democrat/republican candidates.
[editline]5th November 2012[/editline]
And it's a statistic, it doesn't mean 100% of the people in the states will vote republican or democrat, it just means that there is a tenancy for one of the parties to win-out in that state because of popular ideals.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;38325143]This is precisely why I do not vote.
Who's to say one of these delegates says "You know what. Fuck the guy you voted for, I want Obama / Romney in." Your vote matter? Haha. Dream world. The people have zero say in who becomes president. Which is sad, and honestly, goes against the core values of this country. How it is even in place is a joke. For the people by the people my ass.
It is not a legitimate voting system and there for I do not support it.
However, for local issues, I will gladly vote. As popular vote does matter. Like it should.[/QUOTE]
You are afraid of "faithless electors", the last time this has happened where it mattered was in 1874, but there's about one in each election (Mostly in primaries, rarely in actual elections). Also 24 states have laws against this.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;38325143]This is precisely why I do not vote.
Who's to say one of these delegates says "You know what. Fuck the guy you voted for, I want Obama / Romney in." Your vote matter? Haha. Dream world. The people have zero say in who becomes president. Which is sad, and honestly, goes against the core values of this country. How it is even in place is a joke. For the people by the people my ass.
It is not a legitimate voting system and there for I do not support it.
However, for local issues, I will gladly vote. As popular vote does matter. Like it should.[/QUOTE]
Tinfoil hat much?
Yes, they can, but they don't.
also guess what, the core values (electoral college has been used since the first presidental election) aren't being broken
also its therefore
[QUOTE=nicatronTg;38330097]Sebato's predictions are in the same thinking. Last time he published predictions Romney was favored, but no longer.
[url]http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/projection-obama-will-likely-win-second-term/[/url][/QUOTE]
oh goody, everyone's changing their predictions/polling the day before so they can maintain credibility for the next election. i guess this time they have hurricane sandy to blame.
also, Nate Silver has a good article on Sandy:
[url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/nov-4-did-hurricane-sandy-blow-romney-off-course/[/url]
[QUOTE=thisispain;38319125]according to 538 Obama's chance to win is 85.1% so i think this idea of the race being "close" is a complete joke.
[url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/[/url][/QUOTE]
The media has to make it seem close. They need a close race for views
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38331864]The media has to make it seem close. They need a close race for views[/QUOTE]
pretty much this. Hurricane Sandy is just a convenient way for them to cover their asses and maintain credibility
i was in the car with someone listening to talk radio
and they keep making it seem like oh its gonna be so close
86.3% of incumbent win is not "so close"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
