Electing Leaders

hismajesty · February 18, 2004, 06:12 PM

Quote from: Arta[vL] on February 17, 2004, 11:55 AM
Same here. Parties with morons for leaders don't tend to get elected though. *cough*

That's why Bush was elected and not Gore.

Adron · February 18, 2004, 06:15 PM

Quote from: iago on February 17, 2004, 11:57 AM
But our party's leader changed during the party's term. That's the most unfair thing I've ever seen.

Sweden uses a similar system. The single leader isn't that important here though, doesn't have that much extra power, no vetoing etc.

Kp · February 18, 2004, 09:43 PM

Quote from: Grok on February 17, 2004, 10:43 PMRight, which is why it's not stupid. States each choose who they want, and the electors vote for that candidate which the people of the state selected by popular vote (or whatever method that state chooses).

The main thing that I hear cited against this design is that most states tend to have an all-or-nothing system. That is, if a candidate has a majority of even one vote, he gets all of the electoral votes for that state. I've heard arguments both for and against switching it to be percentage driven (e.g. got 51% popular vote? You get 51% of the electoral vote.) Unfortunately, I don't recall offhand the details cited by either side.

MyndFyre · February 18, 2004, 10:24 PM

Quote from: Kp on February 18, 2004, 09:43 PM
Quote from: Grok on February 17, 2004, 10:43 PMRight, which is why it's not stupid. States each choose who they want, and the electors vote for that candidate which the people of the state selected by popular vote (or whatever method that state chooses).

The main thing that I hear cited against this design is that most states tend to have an all-or-nothing system. That is, if a candidate has a majority of even one vote, he gets all of the electoral votes for that state. I've heard arguments both for and against switching it to be percentage driven (e.g. got 51% popular vote? You get 51% of the electoral vote.) Unfortunately, I don't recall offhand the details cited by either side.

That's exactly the way that it works; in fact, IIRC, all states are that way. That's why I say that it's a "States' Rights" issue. =)

muert0 · February 18, 2004, 10:32 PM

but the electorals dont have to vote for the party they are registered to vote for.
it was a system designed two centuries ago because half the people were illiterate and the people who designed the system said all things should and will change. I think its time the electoral college was done away with.

MyndFyre · February 19, 2004, 09:47 AM

However, the electorals must tell the state appointing them whom they will vote for. That's why when the Secretary of State in Florida certified the votes, it guaranteed Bush's win -- the electoral appointees vote for whomever their state tells them to vote.

Kp · February 19, 2004, 12:42 PM

Quote from: Myndfyre on February 19, 2004, 09:47 AMthe electoral appointees vote for whomever their state tells them to vote.

hmm, when I last checked, that wasn't common throughout all the states. Most required it, but some didn't I think.

muert0 · February 19, 2004, 03:47 PM

they arent required to vote for that person last I was taught but that was a few years ago. You sure the secretary of state didnt just verify who they voted for. kinda like when the jury has to stand up and say whether they voted guilty or not guilty. I forget what its called.

edit: I'll probably just shut up after this because I'm not really into politics to much and I'm prolly way off.

Electing Leaders

hismajesty