Lifestyle > Train of Thought
What happens if a candidate wins the election....
pappy:
--- Quote from: Trauma on October 20, 2004, 08:16:12 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
lol
Suga Foot:
--- Quote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 20, 2004, 07:30:59 PM ---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.)
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: DaBoss on October 20, 2004, 08:10:13 PM ---
--- Quote from: white boy on October 20, 2004, 08:01:55 PM ---
--- Quote from: jeromechickenbone on October 20, 2004, 07:48:06 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: DaBoss on October 20, 2004, 05:30:21 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
:)
--- End quote ---
jeromechickenbone:
--- Quote from: DaBoss on October 20, 2004, 08:10:13 PM ---
--- Quote from: white boy on October 20, 2004, 08:01:55 PM ---
--- Quote from: jeromechickenbone on October 20, 2004, 07:48:06 PM ---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?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: DaBoss on October 20, 2004, 05:30:21 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
:)
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Suga Foot on October 20, 2004, 08:27:41 PM ---
--- Quote from: Lincoln The Mental Traveller on October 20, 2004, 07:30:59 PM ---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.)
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version