US Electoral College

[Lê Thị Thủy (A2)]

Hi!!!

The US Presidential Election is now over. Though I have something unclear on how its presidents are picked. Details in question are within the manner in which US citizens came up with two sets of votes: popular votes and electoral votes. Problems are:

1. How numbers of electors are appointed for each state. For it equals the state's sum of representatives and senators (2 for each state). But how many representatives, and what to determine it?

2. I found out this somewhere "However, there comes a problem whereby in law, electors have the freedom to choose whichever candidates that they feel appropriate." :-s So what is actually happening?

Looking forward to your replies ;

 

[Nguyen Khac Son (blackmind)]

1. How numbers of electors are appointed for each state. For it equals the state's sum of representatives and senators (2 for each state). But how many representatives, and what to determine it?

IMHO, the number of house representatives each state gets is determined on its population. The size of constituency of each representative is a congressional district which population should be approximately 500,00. Every 10 years, congressional district is redrawn to reflect the change in population.

2. I found out this somewhere "However, there comes a problem whereby in law, electors have the freedom to choose whichever candidates that they feel appropriate." So what is actually happening

True, electors can pick whoever they want. However, all electors of a state are picked by the majority party. Elector-wannabes all have to go through a cherrypicking process hence only those that are extremely loyal would survive.
Anyway, even if there's some rebellious elector who choose not to vote or to vote against his own party, it is very unlikely that his vote would be counted. Once again, the majority of the electors ( of a state ) would decide which party prevails, in other words, get all the electoral vote in that state.
Hope it helps.

 

[Lê Thị Thủy (A2)]

Blackmind, thanks loads!

I have questions about nominees also :"> How do they choose presidential candidates that ppl vote for? Is it true that every year there are three candidates? Besides Repulican and Democratic parties, there is always a third party isn't it? How is this third party to be picked to the national votes? Why don't all those minor parties take part in the competition every election?

Btw, I've heard of argumentative conversations on electoral college system, while the electorial votes don't reflect the exact wills of ppl (difference between nation-wide votes and electoral vote). There are different suggestions, including direct voting (this is seemingly not really going on well huh :-s ) and proportional voting systems. It's quite a long time since there are criticisms on this. How come the US Congress never changes it Hmm, perhaps 20 years later they will? 8-}

 

[Phạm Minh Hằng (Phaminhang)]

Besides Repulican and Democratic parties, there is always a third party isn't it? How is this third party to be picked to the national votes? Why don't all those minor parties take part in the competition every election?

Yes. There are also Green Party, Libertarian Party and Independant Party. However, u know that th United States is very huge country with a large population. Therefore, in order to let people aware of parties, the parties have to spend a lot of money to travel from states to states to propagate people about their parties. And so, Republican and Democratic are the two ones that have enough money to do so. I guess those two parties have existed for a longer time than other parties do.

Second point, sometimes, policies of Republic or Democratic are the same as those of other minor parties. Say, for example, during the recent presidential election, Nader is a member of an Independant party. Some of the policies that he said are pretty much the same as the Republic party, which Kerry belongs to. So independant party is similar to republican to some degree. Therefore, people do not like Nader to run a campain because if Nader had run, then people might vote for him, and the votes for Kerry would have been decreased tremendously. Consequently, Bush would won, bcuz votes which would be for Kerry now spit into two pieces , one for Kerry and one for Nader.

Those are two points that hopefully would answer your question.

 

[Lê Thị Thủy (A2)]

Sorry that I feel they indeed don't 8-|

I contend that it's the matter of policy, not the matter of "should or should not". You know what I mean?

For the third parties I reckon they are by no means concerned about what will be happening for either Dem. or Rep. Even if they are not going to win, isn't taking part in the election a effective way to improve their popularity?

The question is that: how Congress elect parties' nominees, or in other words, how nominees are allowed to enter the contest.

Btw, it seems not many ppl interested in this. Learning by my self seems too hard (and timeconsuming he he) hix hix gonna give up (

 

[Nguyen Khac Son (blackmind)]

Congress doesnt select candidates. Instead, parties do it themselves. Candidate for each party are selected at the party's convention. He/she has to meet the requirement to run for President( 35 years old, 14 years resident, natural born citizen blah blah blah ).
As a matter of fact, if you are not an elephant or a donkey, you can enter the ballot in each state by gathering enough signatures, with the amount of sigs needed varies from state to state. You only need to make the ballot at 1 state to be a presidential candidate.( easy, huh? ) For the record, Nader didnt make the ballot at most states. ( anyone correct me? )
I find my answer no less confusing than your question anyhow. :lol:

 

[Lê Thị Thủy (A2)]

Yeah mine is confusing so, i was misled he he >:-D< .. what i was gonna asked at first was that the underlying rationales that they never joined massly ;

i've read abt the sig. requirement , but i don't really think it's the reason.

 

[Phạm Minh Hằng (Phaminhang)]

hhehe, taking part in an election costs money, and some parties can not afford it. I suppose!

i think my second point is a bit confusing, i dun hv time to rephrase it thou. But it helps to answer part of ur questions

 

[Nguyen Khac Son (blackmind)]

3 words: Federal Matching Fund
That is, if a candidate manage to get at least 5% of the popular votes in the previous election he would qualify for the FMF plan, in which he receive federal grant to spend on campaigning. The cap for this fund, if my memory serves well, is about 40 millions bucks. Moreover, he get the right to join the presidential debate AND enforce other parties to talk about topics he may raise. In other words, the third party become a 'major' party, or nationally recognized.
As you can point out, the possibility of ,say, Nader, qualifies for this is just a long shot, as he needs about 4% of American voters more. However, the prospect of this is enticing enough that candidates may consider this as an incentive.
BTW, what do you need all this BS for? :lol:
P/S: As sis Thuy's intepretation of her question increase in complexity , her requirement for a fair answer has gone far beyond my knowledge. Can anyone else come and help this young lady?

 

[Lê Thị Thủy (A2)]

I still don't think those funding stuffs don't elucidate well. We are on diff. focus. What I am trying to accentuate is the reason why parties not taking part in the election if they are not prevented from that. Participation itself helps increase popularity right? Although they never managed the 5% barrier, they are still on their political job and no FMF doesn't mean that they eliminate it.

Hix hix perhaps my illustration is confusing again...

To blackmind: I thought it is an intresting topic to get to know, I even hoped that there would be more ppl to partake this and to show their knowledgeability he he he..