To make one addition point, once the combined session of the United States Congress meets on Jan. 6th, and accepts or possibly objects to
electoral college voters or how ever else the President and Vice President vote are counted, it's done.
Not exact matches
Is there any data indicating that abolishing the
electoral college would cause extremist
voters to play more of a role in the election?
Second, the
electoral college was set up to weed out «unacceptable» candidates not by dividing fringe
voters in different states per se but by giving the electors the power to elect the candidate who lost the popular vote in the event that the more popular candidate turned out to be unacceptable for whatever reason.
If the US presidential election abolishes the
electoral college, would this mean that extremist
voters (someone who fanatically supports a specific political direction and will vote whoever supports it the most) play more of a role in the election?
There are only two systems in the United States to allocate
electoral college electors, and both involve
voters picking only one candidate pair (President / Vice-President).
According to its supporters, one of the primary virtues of the
electoral college is that winning candidates must obtainconcurrent majorities from around the country to win, rather than appeal to clusters of
voters whose votes could be aggregated across states and regions but nevertheless might not represent all strata of society.
They elect their states representative in the
electoral college which then elects both positions separately on the behalf of their
voters.
Voters directly elect members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, and also directly elect members of the
electoral college who in turn elect the U.S....
Miliband will insist on it; ballot his Party and win; decouple Labour from the unions altogether (throwing them out of the
electoral college that elects the Party's leader in the process) impress
voters as a strong leader - and transform their view of him and his Party.
@JonathanReez The other thing to consider is that in states where there is no real contest,
voter turnout tends to be lower for the obvious reason that it has no impact on the
electoral college.
The most recent attempts at
voter disenfranchisement through fiddling with the
electoral college system is just one more example of the sense of entitlement many republicans seem to have.
I understand the constitution does not explicitly guarantee that all votes must be equal, nor does it ban geographic
voter discrimination and that it does call for an
electoral college so I see the counter argument would be strong, but I wonder if you guys think there is any case to be made for my argument.