https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#Florida_recount "Though Gore came in second in the electoral vote, he received 543,895 more popular votes than Bush.[61] Gore failed to win the popular vote in his home state, Tennessee, which both he and his father had represented in the Senate, making him the first major-party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972. Furthermore, Gore lost West Virginia, a state that had voted Republican only once in the previous six presidential elections.[62] A victory in either of these two states would have given Gore enough electoral votes to win the presidency."
[deleted]
1 up, 7y
I forgot about that and so thanks for reminding me! I'm tired and it's been a long day!! Lol. And, thus, the whole reason for my meme--lol
Gore DID NOT ACTUALLY LOSE FLORIDA - Katelynn (JENNER?) HARRIS call notwithstanding.
He lost the PRESIDENCY by a 5-4 vote - which 2or3 of the 5 Supremes Would have recused themselves from - if LEGAL ETHICS in this country weren't' a COMPLETE OXYMORON - from top-to-bottom.
Additionally HE FOLDED LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS. Where Dubya's dad POPPY sent a CIA-f**king-hitman - like James Baker - to Fla. To oversee the 'BROOKS BROTHERS RIOT'....
Al sent a milque toast (CIA) "PUBLIC DIPLOMAT" like Warren Christopher. To anyone with the EYES to SEE it....That was him Waving the WHITE FLAG.
Struck me @ the time as a foreshadowing of THE DEATH OF THE REPUBLIC. And sure enuff - ..Rubicon Crossed....
a Majority vote for any one candidate in a state determines who gets the Electoral vote from that state once the results are certified. Even 1 vote over determines the states winner.
[deleted]
4 ups, 7y,
2 replies
Yes, if I'm not mistaken, the electoral college is not locked in/obligated to vote their party which means our votes will not matter if the college goes against the popular vote.
You are confusing delegates for the Nomination with the electoral college...
[deleted]
3 ups, 7y,
1 reply
No, I don't think I am. There are many states that do not require the electorals to vote their party and that is why I don't like it. To quote another meme character " it really grinds my gears"!
Except for Maine and Nebraska, all states have chosen electors on a "winner-take-all" basis since the 1880s.That is, each state has all of its electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote.
[deleted]
4 ups, 7y,
1 reply
It's true that they pledge to vote with the popular vote but they actually don't have to and can be fined if they don't and if that happens does their vote still count? I am truly not trying to be argumentative but I have a feeling that if Trump wins the popular vote he won't win the electoral vote.
If that were to happen , there would be riots in the streets because the election results and votes are normally known on election night and called by the media as results come in.
[deleted]
4 ups, 7y,
3 replies
And from what I understand, the EC votes in December and results are read January 6th--so that gives someone like Soros plenty of time to "persuade " some of the EC
voting is not supposed to be an emotional system it is supposed to be fair and balanced. but that is harder to bias, so all the pressure is to force everyone to make emotional decisions about it. that is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid: emotional voters as demonstrated as working so horribly wrong in the french revolution..
Go look up REICHSMARSHALL GOERING (or was that GOEBBELS - I constantly confuse my RACIST XENOPHOBES.)'s quote about what it takes to bring ANY nation to War. Just a Bit instructive.
Well, I don't think it was about emotion as it was about rationality. See, the Founders were a product of the Enlightenment, which elevated reason as the highest moral factor. So they reasoned that the people and the legislatures, together, would prevent the creation of a totalitarian monarchy. You're talking to a history and poly-sci major here. :)
that word "rationality" is not liked (and/or misunderstood) by the general public which is why I didnt use it and said "balanced" instead but intending the same meaning. anyways the rise of the apathetic voter is a more modern phenomenon i.e. make people emotional, dont talk about facts or issues, then bias them to make an emotional choice hopefully for a particular person. one candidate today tho doesnt need any extra help in making people emotional because he cant help talking trash and trolling media which makes people very emotional regardless.
the anti-hillary people are always pulling out that "media hates the other person" meme.. the truth is.. if the other guys weren't so anti-charismatic and horribly spoken then the media would like them too. whats next ya gonna claim that ross perot was raised up or held back because of newspapers and media too? not..
its really not rigged and any candidate which spreads any meme of "it's rigged" is not doing justice to the american people or the american system. the entire system must absolutely must be based on solid belief system which allows all to want to vote. dishonoring the system only discourages people (esp minorities) to throw their voices away. many people vote by mail and those results are not real time counted. there is delay. the real time "news at 11'oclock on CNN" for election nite is non accurate numbers for ratings and really does not do the american public any good either but it does make a lot of money for the tv stations.
in my opinion the public should persuade all network tv and such to not continue the "this just in, this person has won this district" news reporting on voting nite. there should be a delay in reporting to allow everyone the feeling that they are making a difference by voting (because they are). that is the american ideal!
The Electoral College was designed to prevent one person or group from obtaining absolute power. The Founders based it on a hybrid Roman-British system. The people would elect the house, the individual State legislatures would vote the Senate, and the State legislatures would elect "electors" within those legislatures to cast one vote each and the people to cast one vote each. Public opinion can't always be trusted; so the Electoral College, as someone said earlier, was instituted to "correct" or "prevent" a poor electoral choice, in case the people elected a Hitler or some crazy God-awful loon. Our system of government is the only consistent form of government in the world, keeping the same Constitution and system of government in place for 240 years. We must be doing something right.
Did you remember to RESET your Historical clock to Day/GROUND ZERO - a little more than 15 years ago?
Your thinking is SOOOoooo September 10th.
[deleted]
2 ups, 7y
There was a time when the west coast wouldn't even go out and vote bc the news declared "so and so" the winner and the problem was that the local elections were getting short changed so there was a huge change in not reporting a winner until west coast polls closed. So maybe more changes such as what you're saying could come about. I agree with you and would like to see something like that also.
it is the defense mechanism against electing a hitler. the delegates are not required to follow public opinion. "Although no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge, there have been very few occasions when an elector voted contrary to a pledge.[7][8] The Twelfth Amendment, in specifying how a president and vice president are elected, requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.[9][10]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29
at the end of day I guess electoral college would never allow trump to win.
Caption this Meme
