It is a simple straightforward system - whichever candidate wins the majority of the votes in any given state, wins all the electoral votes for that state. It's a great system, guarantees the representation of each state, and insures that candidates will have to campaign in every state.
2006-08-29 07:32:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
The Constitution gives states (i.e., state legislatures) the right to determine how their electors are selected. Theoretically, they could apportion the votes anyway that wanted to but custom and federal voter rights legislation does impose some limitations. Today, all but two states award all their electoral colleges votes based on the state-wide popular vote. The candidate with the most votes (plurality) gets all the state's electors. Maine and Nebraska, however, use an alternative system where the electors are awarded based on the vote at the congressional district level, not the state wide-level. Since ME and NE adopted these system there has never been an election where a district's vote went against the state-wide vote. This means, in theory, the two states could split their electoral vote between two candidates but it has never happened.
2006-08-29 08:24:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by hedgeman 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
In historic previous classification in intense college, the place we found out on the subject of the form and each of the failings the founding fathers (you be responsive to, those outdated ineffective white adult adult males), positioned the wheels of capability into action, they have been so ill and uninterested in the way that each and every eu substitute into taken care of they vowed to make a clean and dwelling government. (particular, the form is a dwelling record) the capability substitute into to the people that owned land and the early voters have been in simple terms the adult adult males. endure in innovations females did not get the surprising to vote till the 20's. Blacks and different nationalities (Italians, Irish, French, and Spanish) had no vote casting rights the two. The founding fathers observed a minor glitch right here and chosen to advance an electoral college, to pool the votes from their states and by making use of the delegates despatched to the capital, they could % the president, in accordance to the peoples vote of their state. each and every state substitute into given a value counting on the kind of voters in line with state, some have not replaced lots via fact the commencing up, yet as states have been further to the union, greater electoral votes have been provided. California did not have many votes while it grew to alter right into a state, besides the undeniable fact that it has greater beneficial than ny, between the 1st states, now. The fluctuation of inhabitants motives this re numeration each and every 10 years (US Census Bureau). in simple terms via fact the favored vote is intense for one candidate over yet another, in a state with few electoral votes, would not recommend that those votes will push the candidate over the huge type mandatory to be elected.
2016-12-14 14:18:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, the popular vote in each state determines which candidate/party gets to choose the voters who make up the electoral vote. In most states the winner takes all and I think a couple states have a proportional vote, such that if you got 60% of the vote you get to pick 60% of the electors.
2006-08-29 07:31:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kyrix 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Not exactly. The popular vote and the electoral college really aren't interchangeable.
A presidential candidate can win the popular vote but not be elected president. In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president.
2006-08-29 07:28:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by kja63 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
More or less. Each state determines how the popular vote within their state is converted to electoral votes.
Most states use an all-or-nothing approach, where the overall popular winner within the state is awarded all the votes for that state.
But it's up to each states' laws how the electoral votes are allocated.
2006-08-29 07:45:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, the winner of the popular vote in any given state wins all the electoral votes for that state.
2006-08-29 07:29:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by wilsonaj101177 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nope.
The popular vote of a state ONLY,that detirmines who gets ALL the electoral points of that state.
The popular vote of the country overall means nothing(god that's poignant in this messed up day and age).
2006-08-29 07:29:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
yes, the popular vote for each district determines the way the electoral college votes.
2006-08-29 07:30:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by W E J 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
the electoral college was set in place to "save the people from themselves," according to one member i heard in an interview several years back (it was a woman, and i don't remember which state she represented). the electoral voters consider the popular vote, but may vote any way they choose.
this is why i think the system sucks. we have the know-how and technology necessary to count the popular vote nation-wide, but officials are too worried about hackers, messed up machinery and stupid people to actually try it. another reason why this place sucks.
2006-08-29 07:35:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by buffysummers 4
·
0⤊
2⤋