Thanks seed. I appreciate it.
Seed, it's because our government is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic comprised of 50 independent state that retain rights of their own. It's not fair to allow large population areas to stomp all over low population areas, any more than it would be fair to allow low population areas to stomp all over high population areas. So, we have the best possible compromise to allow all of us a vote. With a president chosen solely on popular vote, urban areas (southwest and northeast coastal areas) would make the decision and the entire center of the country would have virtually no vote. If we were all one country without separate states, this would be okay. But each state has it's own values, traditions, government that is NOT dictated by the federal government - it was set up this way by our constitution to prevent the federal government from being too powerful - another set of checks and balances. Each state gets to choose how they allocate their electoral votes. They can be allocated proportionally or in one lump. Most states have chosen to award the electoral votes in one lump in order to give that state more influence.
Electors, in most cases, are also NOT bound to cast their vote for the candidate the state voted for. Some states have misdemeanor laws that charge up to a $10K fine for these "faithless electors" but it's generally agreed that they wouldn't hold up to a constitutional challenge. It has happened several times that electors don't vote with the popular vote of their state. But, since these are folks with strong party or candidate ties, you can imagine it would take extraordinary circumstance for an elector to vote against their party. Most places list the elector's names right on the ballot, since you are, in fact, voting for the electors and not the presidential candidate. Confusing? Yep. But a rather ingenious way to balance the rights of the states with the rights of the people.
well that breaks it down a bit more thanks Idaho
Yes, that was awesome Idaho. Welcome to A2K, btw.
Larry434 wrote:Kristie wrote:Thanks seed. I appreciate it.
If my "Well boohoo" response to your complaint was offensive to you, please accept my apology.
It wasn't offensive to me, I was just thanking someone for being kind. If I wasn't able to take nasty remarks, I surely wouldn't be in the political forum.
"It wasn't offensive to me, I was just thanking someone for being kind. If I wasn't able to take nasty remarks, I surely wouldn't be in the political forum."
Same here.
The "nasty" remarks in political debate get a whole lot worse than "Well boohoo" in response to a complaint.
well, sure. But just lettin' you know.
eh i've just seen how things can turn in a blink of an eye and i didnt want that to happen... but thanks for the info Larry
