Difference Between Popular and Electoral Vote

[Dayo]

President Obama was groomed by the ELITE to be president of United States of America. So folks should understand how the president is chosen in the election every four years. Masses of folks in America has been bamboozled by the ELITE. The next election is around the corner folks. No matter who you vote for the ELITE is in CONTROL.


http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in theConstitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary onhow the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about thequalifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.
The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors.
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try topredict the outcome of the Electoral College vote.
After the presidential election, your governor prepares a “Certificate of Ascertainment” listing all of the candidates who ran for President in your state along with the names of their respective electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. Your state’s Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2012 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials, the Office of the Federal Register and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Congress in the Electoral College process.
The meeting of the electors takes place on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election. The electors meet in their respective states, where they cast their votes for President and Vice President on separate ballots. Your state’s electors’ votes are recorded on a “Certificate of Vote,” which is prepared at the meeting by the electors. Your state’s Certificates of Votes are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. See the key dates for the 2012 election and information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials and the Congress in the Electoral College process.
Each state’s electoral votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on the 6th of January in the year following the meeting of the electors. Members of the House and Senate meet in the House chamber to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. (On December 28, 2012, President Obama signed Pub.L. 112-228, as passed by both houses of Congress, moving the day of the vote count from January 6, 2013 (a Sunday) to January 4, 2013.) See the key dates for the 2012 election and information about the role and responsibilities of Congress in the Electoral College process.
The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
The President-Elect takes the oath of office and is sworn in as President of the United States on January 20th in the year following the Presidential election.



Electoral Vote vs. Popular Vote

Electoral Vote vs Popular Vote - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
In a presidential election, the popular vote simply means an aggregate of all voters from all states in America. It is quite possible that a candidate wins the popular vote (i.e. gets more votes over all) and yet loses the presidential election. This is because although Americans vote directly for their chosen candidate in the presidential election every 4 years, the president is elected by the institution called the Electoral College. In the 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote.

[TABLE="width: 660"]
[TR]
[TH="class: vcol"][h=3][/h][/TH]
[TH="class: vcol"][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff lastRow"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Dayo]

[h=1]Electoral Vote vs. Popular Vote[/h][h=2]Comparison chart[/h][TABLE="width: 660"]
[TR]
[TH="class: acol"]

[/TH]
[TH="class: vcol"][h=3]Electoral Vote[/h][/TH]
[TH="class: vcol"][h=3]Popular Vote[/h][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"]Political Structure[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Representative Democracy or Republic[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Direct Democracy or Republic[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"]Progression of Vote[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Citizen votes for delegate or representative, generally in accordance with their allegiances. Delegates convene and vote. Winner of that vote is elected for the position in question.[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Citizens vote for their choice of official for the position being elected. Votes are counted. Majority of votes is elected to that position.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"]Bureaucracy[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Requires formation of some form of committee, college, or council to vote after they've been elected. May also have government oversight organizations.[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Requires no formation of such groups, nor the election of such groups. May also have government oversight organizations.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"]Establishment of Voting Districts[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Mandatory, regional delegates run for given district's delegate locations via their party or individually.[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Not required.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"]Gerrymandering[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Present and created as a result of voting districts.[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Not created due to lack of need for voting districts.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"]Party Benefits[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Favors majority parties, as they can concentrate resources, change bureaucracy, establish and gerrymander voting districts.[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Favors no party size in particular, though greatly improves potential for minority parties.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: comparisonRow diff lastRow"]
[TD="class: acol, align: right"]Modern History[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]More efficient and helpful prior to modern transportation and communication. These benefits are no longer in place for developed nations.[/TD]
[TD="class: vcol"]Harder to accomplish beyond geographically-close groups prior to modern transportation and communication. These hindrances are no longer in place for developed nations.


Electoral Vote vs Popular Vote - Difference and Comparison | Diffen[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[crossnote]

Why is the left so gung-ho in tearing down the framework of the Constitution?

So, where did the Electoral College come from, anyway? | Science Buzz

Chandler Christy


The men who wrote the Constitution created the Electoral College for two main reasons. The first was a concern over mob rule. In the years leading up to the Constitutional Convention, they had seen a number of instances where politicians catering to public opinion had broken the law. The Founders felt that having a small, well-informed group validate the election would prevent such abuses. Since the Electors only met once every four years, and no one would know who they were until shortly before the election, it was unlikely they could be manipulated by political parties or foreign governments.

It is worth remembering that the Founders considered the presidency to be a somewhat minor office—sort of a chief administrator, but not the powerful position it has since become. In their view, the real power was held by the legislature, and the president merely carried out the laws that Congress passed.

The second reason for the Electoral College was to satisfy the smaller states, who were afraid they would have no voice in the new federal government. This is also the reason why we have both a Senate and a House of Representatives. In the House, bigger states have more representatives. In the Senate, all states are equal, regardless of size. The Electoral College combines these two into a single body, again guaranteeing that the small states will have a voice.

The unintended consequence of this is that all citizens, whether they live in big states or small states, end up with a stronger voice under the Electoral College than with a direct election.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Why is the left so gung-ho in tearing down the framework of the Constitution?

Because they hate what America has always been, and are, brick by brick and tenet by tenet, tearing it down in favor of a socialist-dictator form of government.

 

[Dayo]

The Founders had honorable intentions,but today's system is corrupt, unethical, sinister, and sellouts. The Church is very silent in the dark chaos of humanity. Jesus spoke about this also and many other prophets in the Bible. The Bible is speaking to the present and future to come. Below is a speech by Andrew Jackson & read the speech for yourselves about:
http://bigeye.com/jackson.htm
[h=2]President Andrew Jackson's Farewell Speech - excerpt[/h][TABLE="width: 95%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]This posting comprises roughly half of President Jackson's farewell speech in which he addresses taxes and control of the money supply. It should be reposted and linked to widely. As if any further proof was needed as to who owns the media, wonder at the subsequent complete absence of any public discussion that resembles what Jackson says here. The bankers knew how to ensure that Jackson's urging of 'eternal vigilance' would come to nought. They would control the media. Today we are besieged by our mainline media discussing 'the banking crisis'. Isn't it time for at least one 'talking head" to mention these candid, historical, and brilliant comments made by a former President of our country? Regardless, students can use the internet by themselves.[/FONT]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"][FONT=verdana, geneva]Stewart Ogilby
Sarasota, FL

[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The government is so out of control. It is so bloated and infested with fraud and deceit and corruption and abuse of power.
Ted Nugent

Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.
James Madison

I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.
Andrew Jackson

Money and corruption are ruining the land, crooked politicians betray the working man, pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep, and we're tired of hearing promises that we know they'll never keep.
Ray Davies

Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both.
John F. Kennedy

Fighting corruption is not just good governance. It's self-defense. It's patriotism.
Joe Biden

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
Thomas Jefferson

Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.
Saul Alinsky( Mentor of President Obama)




The great constitutional corrective in the hands of the people against usurpation of power, or corruption by their agents is the right of suffrage; and this when used with calmness and deliberation will prove strong enough.
Andrew Jackson

Speeches on Youtube:
JFK speech on corruption
Robert Welch
Chris Hedges
Fascism
Noah Chomsky

[h=1]Chris Hedges Call to Action to create "New Movements" replacing corrupt Government[/h]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-C8FZcnkko

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

The Founders had honorable intentions,but today's system is corrupt, unethical, sinister, and sellouts.

While government is exactly that, the system has actually saved us from a couple disasters, like Al Gore being president, for example.

The Church is very silent in the dark chaos of humanity. Jesus spoke about this also and many other prophets in the Bible.

The only thing Jesus said about government is "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and God that which is God's." Paul said government is established by God, so I take that to mean we get the government for which God has His purpose at any given time.

 

[Dayo]

While government is exactly that, the system has actually saved us from a couple disasters, like Al Gore being president, for example.

The only thing Jesus said about government is "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and God that which is God's." Paul said government is established by God, so I take that to mean we get the government for which God has His purpose at any given time.

Read the following book: Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Read the following book: Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges

Did you read that book? I already have. Do you realize Hedges calls the life of Christ a myth? Why would you want to read that for any kind of inspiration?

His attempt to connect the fallacy of professional "wrestling" to any underlying cause at the heart of the issues fomenting this country's demise is utter nonsense. It is oversimplification and, in its own sense, a "dumbing down" of the real problems so people won't think they are actually problems at all.

Also, it has nothing to do with the electoral college's prevention of election stealing.

 

[Dayo]

Did you read that book? I already have. Do you realize Hedges calls the life of Christ a myth? Why would you want to read that for any kind of inspiration?

His attempt to connect the fallacy of professional "wrestling" to any underlying cause at the heart of the issues fomenting this country's demise is utter nonsense. It is oversimplification and, in its own sense, a "dumbing down" of the real problems so people won't think they are actually problems at all.

Also, it has nothing to do with the electoral college's prevention of election stealing.

Thank you for keeping me on point!

 

[Dayo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-electoral-college/2012/11/02/2d45c526-1f85-11e2-afca-58c2f5789c5d_story.html

Five myths about the electoral college


By George C. Edwards III November 2, 2012
1. The framers created the electoral college to protect small states.
The delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had a variety of reasons for settling on the electoral college format, but protecting smaller states was not among them. Some delegates feared direct democracy, but that was only one factor in the debate.
Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn’t, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.
The electoral college distorts the political process by providing a huge incentive to visit competitive states, especially large ones with hefty numbers of electoral votes. That’s why Obama and Romney have spent so much time this year in states like Ohio and Florida. In the 2008 general election, Obama and John McCain personally campaigned in only five of the 29 smallest states.
The framers protected the interests of smaller states by creating the Senate, which gives each state two votes regardless of population. There is no need for additional protection. Do we really want a presidency responsive to parochial interests in a system already prone to gridlock? The framers didn’t.

2. The electoral college ensures that the winner has broad support.
Supporters argue that the electoral college format prevents candidates from targeting specific groups and regions, instead forcing them to seek votes across the country. But that’s not the way it has worked in recent presidential contests. Generally, Republicans have tried to stitch together an electoral college majority from the South, Southwest and Rocky Mountain states, while Democrats have relied on the large states on both coasts and the Midwest, leaving certain swing states (hello, Florida!) as perennial battlegrounds.

Any system of electing the president requires some version of broad support, but the electoral college does little to promote that goal. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore but won in the electoral college. His victory came largely from his support among white men. He did not win majorities among women, blacks, Latinos, urbanites, the young, the old or those with less-than-average income. In short, Bush claimed the White House with the backing of one dominant group, not with broad support.
3. The electoral college preserves stability in our political system by discouraging third parties.
The electoral college offers no guarantee of such “stability” — in fact, history suggests otherwise. The Republican Party was born as a third (or even fourth) party, and it quickly established itself as a major force in the 1856 and 1860 elections. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt ran as a third-party nominee, and though he didn’t win, he easily bested his former party’s candidate, the Republican incumbent, William Howard Taft.

he electoral college system gives a third-party candidate more opportunities to create mischief than a direct election does. Think about what could happen in a neck-and-neck contest: If a third-party nominee won enough states to prevent either major-party candidate from winning the 270 electoral votes needed for a majority, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome. Each state delegation would have one vote; Vermont and Wyoming would count the same as Texas and New York. That’s hardly a recipe for stability.
In addition, under the electoral college, a third party can tip the balance in a closely contested state. In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned votes away from Gore in Florida. Had Nader not run, Gore could have won the election.
Direct elections, especially those without a runoff, prevent such problems. Coming in third or fourth would gain a party no leverage in the selection of the president.
4. In direct elections, candidates would campaign only in large cities.
Under any system, candidates try to spend their time in places where they can reach the most voters. But in a direct election, with every vote counting equally, candidates would have an incentive to appeal to voters everywhere, not just those in swing states. Because the price of advertising is mainly a function of market size, it does not cost more to reach 10,000 voters in Wyoming than it does to reach 10,000 voters in New York or Los Angeles.

It’s the electoral college that shortchanges voters. Because it makes no sense for candidates to spend time or money in states they either cannot win or are certain to win, thriving cities such as Atlanta, San Francisco and El Paso get no love from White House hopefuls.
Making every vote count in every state would have other benefits. It would stimulate party-building efforts and increase turnout. People are more likely to cast a ballot if they think their vote matters.
5. Electors must vote for the candidate who wins their state.
In theory, this is true. In practice, however, electors may vote for whomever they please, and on rare occasions, they do. In a tight election, such behavior might deny either candidate a majority of the electoral vote and throw the election into the House of Representatives.
For generations, pollsters have found that a clear majority of Americans support direct election of the president. The longer we cling to the electoral college, the longer we’ll have presidential campaigns that leave large numbers of voters feeling left out, along with a system that distorts the public’s preferences.
[email protected]

It is amazing how the public education fail to educate ones citizens in true history.

1. Patriotism is, generally speaking, cultural attachment to one's homeland or devotion to one's country, although interpretations of the term vary with context, geography and political ideology. It is a set of concepts closely related to those of nationalism.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Thank you for keeping me on point!

You're welcome, but I don't think I succeeded ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-electoral-college/2012/11/02/2d45c526-1f85-11e2-afca-58c2f5789c5d_story.html

Five myths about the electoral college ...

... because nothing in the Post's story is true. I will take each of their points in order.

1. Small states today undoubtedly receive less attention than large states, unless, of course, the large state is considered a safe state. California comes to mind for the Democrats, Texas for the Republicans. However, a direct vote system would magnify, not improve, this problem because it would encourage a focus on highly populated areas. Small states would likely never receive as much attention as their larger neighbors. The goal is not to eliminate this disparity, but to minimize its severity. Under the Electoral College system, the states are as evenly represented as possible, given that they are not all the same size.

2. The Post must have been laughing up its sleeve when trying to sell the tripe in this point. Professor Judith Best, State University of New York political science chair, explains this dynamic: "[T]he splintering of the vote works against the moderate candidates and works to the advantage of the immoderate, extreme candidates. It does this because the middle is where the inclusive coalitions can be built. By undermining coalition building prior to the general election, a runoff fragments the middle, not the extremes; the extremes are rarely fragmented -- fanatics have solidarity."

3. Some voters do identify with a third party more than they identify with one of the two major parties. Democratic theories try to satisfy the choices of all voters, but not to the point of destabilizing democratic majorities and democratic government itself. A system that favors a stable two-party system, but allows minority parties to vie for control, has a definite benefit over a system that favors many minority parties: Hand in hand with the Electoral College, it tends to prevent the rise to power of extremist groups and radical minorities. Instead, American public policy tends to remain in the middle -- not too far left, not too far right (one hopes and prays).

4. Many critics contend that the current system does not encourage presidential candidates to tour the nation, but instead encourages a focus on mid-sized "swing" states. "Safe" states and small states, they allege, do not receive nearly as much attention on this national tour.
There is an element of truth in this observation. Yet to the degree that safe states do not receive a proportionate amount of attention during campaigns, the logical conclusion is that those states, by and large, must already feel that one of the two presidential candidates represents their interests fairly well. When a candidate ceases to adequately understand and represent one of "his" state's interests, the discontent in that state is usually expressed pretty quickly.

5. While the Post's contention that electors may vote for anyone, including someone not on the ballot, in 235 years, that has happened only in protest votes by a disgruntled elector who was never chosen as an elector again. Virtually all take their assignment seriously, and do the will of the voters, not their own will. Historically, most elections have not been close in the Electoral College, even when the popular vote is close.

The election of 1960 was one such close election. John Kennedy won only 49.7 percent of the popular vote, compared to Nixon's 49.5 percent. However, Kennedy won 56.4 percent of the electoral vote, compared to Nixon's 40.8 percent. Eight years later, this magnification effect worked in favor of Nixon. Although he won the popular vote by less than one percent, he won 55.9 percent of the electoral vote to Hubert Humphrey's 35.5 percent. This magnification effect increases dramatically as popular vote totals spread apart. For instance, in 1952, the winning candidate won 55.1 percent of the popular vote, but a much larger 83.2 percent of the Electoral College vote. In 1956, the difference was 57.4 percent (popular vote) to 86.1 percent (electoral vote). In 1964, it was 61.1 percent (popular vote) to 90.3 percent (electoral vote).

Presidential elections since 1804 have generally seen wide margins of victory in the Electoral College. These margins have gotten wider, on average, through the years as the winner-take-all rule has been adopted by more states and the two-party system has solidified. Since 1804, only two elections -- those in 1876 and 2000 -- were won by fewer than 20 electoral votes. Six elections were won by fewer than 50 electoral votes: Four of these were held in the 1800s. Of the 26 elections held between 1900 and 2000, 17 Presidents have been elected after winning the electoral vote by a margin of 200 votes or more.

 

[crossnote]

I hope this thread isn't another case of a...



​