-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just in case you thought you were voting for President.
- Thread starter Pogo
- Start date
You'd think after 237 years, they would have graduated by now...
Daft.
But then again, in the UK and Canada (and other "Westminster" style parliamentary democracies) very few people get to vote for the Prime Minister, as well. In fact, only the people who live in his/her riding vote for the person who will be PM. That is because the leader of the party that wins the most seats (chosen by the members of the party) automatically becomes the PM.
But then again, in the UK and Canada (and other "Westminster" style parliamentary democracies) very few people get to vote for the Prime Minister, as well. In fact, only the people who live in his/her riding vote for the person who will be PM. That is because the leader of the party that wins the most seats (chosen by the members of the party) automatically becomes the PM.
Not automatically. They have to get permission from the monarch (or, in the absence of the monarch, the vice-regnal representative) to form a government.
... and there have been times when that regnal decision was pivotal in the outcome. Wasn't it the Peterson government in Ontario where the Lieutenant Governor had to decide between two requests to form a government: one from the Conservatives who won the most seats vs. another from a Liberal-NDP coalition that had a majority between them?
PureX
Veteran Member
But in some states (most, I believe) those delegates are required to cast their votes in accord with the will of the majority of voters in their state. If the majority of the citizens of Pennsylvania vote for Trump, the electors from that state are obliged to cast their votes for Trump (or Harris, whichever the voters choose). There are a few states, however, where this is not the case. The electors in those states may only be required to reflect the voter's will, IN PART. For example, if state "X" has 4 electors, 2 of them may be required to vote in accord with the majority of citizens of that state votes, while the other 2 are free to vote however they want. Or, in some states the electors can vote however they want, regardless of what the citizens voted for. That would be quite rare, though.
Where all the electoral BS really becomes problematic is when states with a small actual population of voters gets a relatively large number of electors while the state next door with a very large population of voters gets the same number of electors. Meaning that the actual citizen voters in the later state's votes do not count toward the result of the presidential election as much as the actual citizen's votes in the previous state.
People believe that the rule is one citizen = one vote. But because of the electoral system, one citizen's vote may be worth twice what one other citizen's vote is worth, in actually determining who becomes president.
Where all the electoral BS really becomes problematic is when states with a small actual population of voters gets a relatively large number of electors while the state next door with a very large population of voters gets the same number of electors. Meaning that the actual citizen voters in the later state's votes do not count toward the result of the presidential election as much as the actual citizen's votes in the previous state.
People believe that the rule is one citizen = one vote. But because of the electoral system, one citizen's vote may be worth twice what one other citizen's vote is worth, in actually determining who becomes president.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Most states have laws binding the delegate to vote for the candidate.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Absolutely crazy, isn't it??
Needs to be abolished, although it is said that if the monarch refused to ratify a UK election, the country would become a republic within a month or two.
That would be good.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Which might just be part of the reasons for the lawsuits targeting Trump et al for attempting to bypass the system and get Pence to do something else.
Ya Think?
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Can’t have a conversation without bringing trump into it. It’s a sickness.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
You don't know about the cases of Trump and his lawyers attempting to bring "alternate" slates of electors for Pence to accept.
That is like pretending water is not involved when a ship sinks.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Had nothing to do with the conversation. You inserted trump into it.
In all fairness, Trump's fake electors scheme was an attempt to bypass the system in place of the people electing their electors, not having their electors "hand selected" by a candidate for that office, so yeah, it's very much on topic.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
No it was not. But have a nice day.
It's the old bait and switch tactic--"Look over here! Your ballots are being handled fraudulently!" **switches electors while attention is drawn to ballots**
But we can't let the uneducated masses have unchecked power. Letting the "hairdressers and candlemakers" vote -- to quote Edmund Burk -- would create chaos. The aristocrats and intelligentsia are the only sensible class with the intelligence to maintain order. Order is paramount.
We must have voting restrictions and an electoral college -- in case the masses make stupid choices.
We must have voting restrictions and an electoral college -- in case the masses make stupid choices.