You are correctly describing things how they currently are....i was opining on changes to that system.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick McClure
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: Electoral College/DNC
That is not a majority; a majority is getting greater than 50% of all votes
cast. Getting more than any other single choice is a plurality.
There was a 500,000 vote difference between Bush and Gore, and Nader got 2.3
million votes, neither Bush nor Gore received 50% of the votes, there was a
4 Million vote difference between Bush Sr. and Clinton, and 19 Million votes
were cast for Perot, again, neither candidate got a majority of the votes.
A majority is required in the Electoral College, this is why that 270 number
is so important, if nobody gets 270 votes, it is up to House of
Representatives to determine the president. If this happens, each state gets
one vote, that vote is determined by a quorum of the representatives of each
state. The Senate picks the VP. In all instances a majority of all votes
cast is required.
_____
From: G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 10:13 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Electoral College/DNC
I'm confused. There WAS a majority winner in both elections, wasn't there?
One candidate received more votes than another candidate, right? There's
your president. Perhaps i'm just too simplistic in this thinking, but it
seems logical too me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick McClure
To: CF-Community
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: Electoral College/DNC
So what would we do with the 2000 and 1992 Elections?
Would we have a run off?
How would we handle absentee ballots, would only the people who voted the
first time around be allowed to vote the second time around? Or would only
third party candidates get to the change their votes?
<snip>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
