Need some help here. I took a Democratic/Republican quiz and came up as a Moderate Republican. I once took a quiz and came up as Libertarian. I recently took a Libertarian quiz and came up as a Centrist. I took a Political Party quiz and came up as borderline Socialist. Isn't a socialist like a communist or something? What does this mean? Do I vote for Mickey Mouse now or what? Man this is so messed up. How come it can't be easy and just be American. That's my party. Sheesh. I guess this could be just another way to divide and conquer Americans. Give them like 50 different parties and then when the votes don't count we can rake them in for ourselves. I am so confused. Any thoughts?
I don't have one for much the same reasons. They are all just 'heads' of the same beast. Screwem IMHO, I seriously doubt that our system will ever change for the better based on a vote or who is on office. I think the 2 party system is what got us into this mess in the first place. screwem
If you feel he's the best mouse for the job among given candidates . Vote by issue. Study each candidate. Not by what they say in their campaign ads - check out their voting record on issues that are important to you.
Not against you Tracy, Just the system And then watch them get elected and do whatever they please Watch them forget about you and fill their own needs til next election time. Then watch them tell you about "issues" that someone on their staff told them that you'd want to hear about Repeat And again. Makes me sick
I've sen first hand what happens when you give people some power - that's what makes HOA's so bad to live in. Once politicians get past a certain level it seems all concern for "the people" ends and the only concern is for themselves and how to stay in power. I pretty much vote pro-gun - that's my big issue. It never worked in CA. but it's much better here (so far).
No worries! I know how frustrating it can be, yet I still try...and try...and try. Always the Eternal Optimist!
Okay, so since we are talking about the voting thing. What's up with this electoral votes? Can someone explain it to me? I mean, if you have a total of 100 people in the country and 99 of those 100 vote for a person to be president, how can the other candidate who only got 1 vote win? I think the terminology should be changed from Popular vote to Peoples vote. That vote is the only one that should count. Not some come-from-behind crap that allows someone the People don't like or want into the system. I agree on some platforms that there needs to be reforms. IMO the voting process should be the very first one. Then again I think that all Federal level houses should be done away with and the only ones that can make up laws would be a State level house. This may not be feasible though it is my belief. I think that the People of each state should govern how they will by contacting their legislature and telling the prez how it should go. If they want 'Free Cheese' for the needy, then let the people of each state vote on that and decide if it is right for them. I also think the IRS should be cut out altogether. The military units should be state based and controlled, not as a mass movement. The pride that the states would get from helping others would be reason for shipping men overseas to help other countries, though that would be swayed by local opinion as opposed to foreign or federal opinion. Terms should be cut much shorter. If some politician tries to sell out his state, he should be flogged in public for it. Now I know this may sound extreme, weird or just crazy though I can't help that. It is how it should be done. I vote and I see nothing for my vote. My voice is not heard by my vote or my politicians. So there is no wonder we are in a Great Depression and I'm not talking money. After a while people who see their government going corrupt or uncaring to their plights become depressed and don't even care enough to vote anymore and that is why it is easier to turn them all into sheep. These are just my thoughts and rantings. Enjoy.
The term "electoral college" does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to "electors," but not to the "electoral college." In the Federalist Papers (No. 68), Alexander Hamilton refers to the process of selecting the Executive, and refers to "the people of each State (who) shall choose a number of persons as electors," but he does not use the term "electoral college." The founders appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962 - 1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term "college" (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of persons that act as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. In the early 1800's, the term "electoral college" came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."
Who selects the Electors? The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State. Electors are often selected to recognize their service and dedication to their political party. They may be State elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.
What are the qualifications to be an elector? The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. As a historical matter, the 14th Amendment provides that State officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies are disqualified from serving as electors. This prohibition relates to the post-Civil War era. A State's certification of electors on its Certificates of Ascertainment is generally sufficient to establish the qualifications of electors.
Is my vote for President and Vice President meaningful in the Electoral College system? Yes, within your State your vote has a great deal of significance. Under the Electoral College system, we do not elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote. The Presidential election is decided by the combined results of 51 State elections (in this context, the term "State" includes DC). It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes. The founders of the nation devised the Electoral College system as part of their plan to share power between the States and the national government. Under the Federal system adopted in the U.S. Constitution, the nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes awarded on the basis of State elections could produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote. Nevertheless, the individual citizen's vote is important to the outcome of each State election.
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes? If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system? Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981. Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968 won blocs of electoral votes in the South, which may have affected the outcome, but did not come close to seriously challenging the major party winner. The last third party or splinter party candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one or several states. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).
Thanks for the information Quigley. With that information taken into consideration and what I thought prior to reading it, I am now of the mind to add Electoral Votes as something that I will put my vote towards eliminating. It is my opinion that if the country has 100 people then the vote of that 100 people should be the only way a candidate gets elected. It does not seem the least bit right to me that these electors should have the final say in something the People have already spoken on. There is a reason that we have the right to vote in the first place. If the majority of the people say that candidate X is wrong for them, then what right does any politician to say otherwise? The People have spoken with their votes and that should be the 'be-all end-all'. So from henceforth I will seek to contact whomever I have to as many times as needed until the electoral vote is removed from the process. Anyone that agrees with me, I ask you to do the same thing. We do not need politicians second guessing the will of the People.
