What happens if a candidate wins the election....

[Lincoln]

but doesn't get 270 electoral college votes?? I read a poll in a newspaper that has Bush leading electoral votes, but less than 270.

Similarly, in Canada, if a party wins but the party's leader doesn't get a seat, what happens? (I doubt anyone would know this but it's worth a shot.)

[jeromechickenbone]

Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now.  I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway.  I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates.  With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election.  Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state.  So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?

[white Boy]

Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now.  I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway.  I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates.  With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election.  Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state.  So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?

7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.

[*Jamal*]

Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now.  I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway.  I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates.  With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election.  Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state.  So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?

7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.

 

[Trauma-san]

It's possible though, that Ralph Nader could get like 250 electoral votes, thus fucking up the entire system, and nobody would get 270, lol. 

[pappy]

It's possible though, that Ralph Nader could get like 250 electoral votes, thus fucking up the entire system, and nobody would get 270, lol. 

lol

[Suga Foot]

Similarly, in Canada, if a party wins but the party's leader doesn't get a seat, what happens? (I doubt anyone would know this but it's worth a shot.)

An MP in a 'safe' riding would step down, and then the party leader would run in that Riding in a bi-election.  That's what happened to Stockwell Day in the Okanagan.

[jeromechickenbone]

Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now.  I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway.  I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates.  With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election.  Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state.  So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?

It works both ways. It makes it to where a state like Rhode Island can have a voice against say Cali, but it disregards any votes that aren't in the majority in that particular region. Your telling me you don't see flaw in a system that can actually elect a president who didn't have the most votes in the country?
7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.

 

[jeromechickenbone]

Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now.  I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway.  I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates.  With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election.  Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state.  So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?

7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.

 

i'll try this again, and post outside the quotes this time


It works both ways. It makes it to where a state like Rhode Island can have a voice against say Cali, but it disregards any votes that aren't in the majority in that particular region. Your telling me you don't see flaw in a system that can actually elect a president who didn't have the most votes in the country?

[Lincoln]

Similarly, in Canada, if a party wins but the party's leader doesn't get a seat, what happens? (I doubt anyone would know this but it's worth a shot.)

An MP in a 'safe' riding would step down, and then the party leader would run in that Riding in a bi-election.  That's what happened to Stockwell Day in the Okanagan.

Aaah. Now I recall hearing about that, my Dad was a big Stockwell fan back in the day and used to keep me informed. Makes sense I guess.

[7even]

Well, its currently less than 270. the remainder are a toss up as of right now.  I think the electoral college is bullshit anyway.  I think they should tally each individual vote, and compare it between the candidates.  With the electoral college, it is possible that the person with the most individual votes in the country could lose the election.  Say if you live in an extremely conservative part of the country - say kansas, the vast majority will vote conservative, and your individual vote (say liberal) is useless, because it is drowned out by the conservative vote. Not 1 million to 500,000, its actually 1 to 0. Each state has a different amount of electoral votes based on population of the state.  So there is never the possibilty of not reaching 270. I'm sure i made that about as unclear as possible, but you see what i mean?

7even the Hairbinger, you obviously have no idea how the electoral college works or why it was implemented. If it didn't exist, then the smaller states wouldn't count for shit. Candidates would just spend their time and money in states like California and New York. The electoral college creates a balance of power (large vs. small states). Either you have no knowledge about the U.S. political system, or you don't live here and shouldn't even talk about shit you have no clue about.

 

pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure

[*Jamal*]

It works both ways. It makes it to where a state like Rhode Island can have a voice against say Cali, but it disregards any votes that aren't in the majority in that particular region. Your telling me you don't see flaw in a system that can actually elect a president who didn't have the most votes in the country?

So it's either the votes not in the majority being disregarded, or the entire state? LOL, just read that to yourself out loud a couple times, and then reply.

[*Jamal*]

pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure

LOL, you can't prove me wrong yourself, so you cheer on those who might have a better chance than you. I hope there's something in it for you because if there isn't, then you're kinda pathetic... wait, scratch that, just the fact that you cheer him on makes you pathetic.

[7even]

It works both ways. It makes it to where a state like Rhode Island can have a voice against say Cali, but it disregards any votes that aren't in the majority in that particular region. Your telling me you don't see flaw in a system that can actually elect a president who didn't have the most votes in the country?

So it's either the votes not in the majority being disregarded, or the entire state? LOL, just read that to yourself out loud a couple times, and then reply.

good god. the state is disregarded, because noone will do a serious campaign or anything there, cause everybody knows who they gon vote for no matter what. and how does it make the republicans in new york feel, when noone cares about them because there are more democrats in new york? also, how is it good to ignore everyone who voted democratic in florida, just cause there were 500 more ppl who voted republican. and what's the deal when you live in a state like kansas and KNOW your vote wont ever do a thing.

[7even]

pointed out wrong in 2 sentences go figure

LOL, you can't prove me wrong yourself, so you cheer on those who might have a better chance than you. I hope there's something in it for you because if there isn't, then you're kinda pathetic... wait, scratch that, just the fact that you cheer him on makes you pathetic.

I referred to me in this thread. What Im doing right now. You know you're wrong in this discussion.