Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just having a shufty at the Voting Map on the Beeb Website, and it struck me....

What if the Independant Parties collected 10% of the vote in one state, with the big two claiming 44% and 46% percent respectively. Is it first past the post, as I am under the impression, or is there a set percentage needed to gain the votes?

I know it sounds daft, and I'm not trying to suggest out, but I don't see how a Candidate holding less than 50% of the votes cast could get *all* the College votes.

Obviously, with the two party system, this is unlikely to crop up, but just asking out of interest.

You only need to have a majority of electoral votes MDG. In fact IIRC, both Clinton and Bush were elected with less than majority votes.

Right you are. Was just wondering if there was a threshold or not to claim them.

Still seems bizarre that you can take power without a majority vote, but then, due to Americas size and varing demograph, I don't see how a system could be 100% fair!

EDIT

Actually, now I think I see what you were meaning...although they didn't get 50%+ plus of the vote, neither did the opposition Parties. I originally thought it was the hypothetical situation that by winning certain key States, it is possible to become President with a higher percentage of the population voting for the other guy.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I originally thought it was the hypothetical situation that by winning certain key States, it is possible to become President with a higher percentage of the population voting for the other guy.

You need majority Electoral votes(270), popular votes mean nothing other than to tell your Electoral representatives how you want them to vote. Note that though it has never been done, Electoral representatives MAY vote differently than their constituents(only if they never wanted to be re-elected, of course). The largest number of popular votes in a state(even if less than 50%) is the selection that the Electorals select for their constituents. So yes, this is true(and has happened quite often).

It really is an amazing thing when the president wins the election though the other nominee gets the popular vote. This has actually happened and it works like this:
The winner wins states 51% to 49% or something similar.
The loser wins states by an overwhelming majority. 60%+

Hence someone can get more votes and still lose the election. Fun stuff right?

Well, as long as both candidates have an equal chance of winning (either could do the trick) then it is a fair election I guess.

Like I said, the US is such a huge country, with a wildly varying demograph from innercity hotshots to carrot crunching Hillbillys, I don't think any particular system could really be 100% fair.

Though I suspect proportional representation, rather than first past the post would be a step forward.

Well, truthfully there are fewer of us carrot crunching Hillbillys than innercity hotshots which shows up in the Electorial Votes. Us podunk Southern and Midwest states just do not have the population and clout that the Northern and Far West States do. Florida doesn't really count as Southern anymore. Heck, take California and your already well on your way to winning.

Governments get elected in the UK on votes that are the minority of the total electorate.

It's worth noting that Obama gained 51% of the total popular vote, which is not a sweeping endorsement.

Archaeo wrote:Well, truthfully there are fewer of us carrot crunching Hillbillys than innercity hotshots which shows up in the Electorial Votes. Us podunk Southern and Midwest states just do not have the population and clout that the Northern and Far West States do. Florida doesn't really count as Southern anymore. Heck, take California and your already well on your way to winning.

That's why you elect two senators per state regardless of population.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's worth noting that Obama gained 51% of the total popular vote, which is not a sweeping endorsement.

At least he didn't claim a mandate from the people off that margin, unlike SOMEONE else...

Kilkrazy wrote:

That's why you elect two senators per state regardless of population.

Yeah, but when the Senators are Republican and apparently all things Republican are bad at the moment, things get interesting. At least those races in my state went the way I wanted. We had a crazy failed ex governor running for a seat. Guess he though he didn't run the state in the ground enough back then. Luckily he lost.

Archaeo wrote:Yeah, but when the Senators are Republican and apparently all things Republican are bad at the moment, things get interesting. At least those races in my state went the way I wanted. We had a crazy failed ex governor running for a seat. Guess he though he didn't run the state in the ground enough back then. Luckily he lost.

Not all things Republican are bad, but even the GOP has recognized that they need to do some assessing and reevaluation. Karl Rove said so.

Maine and Nebraska actually have systems which can allow their electoral votes to be split depending on who carries each congressional district based and who carries the statewide vote. All the other states are winner take all.