settle this debate! (a dumb one)

[ScottySo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ya i did read that articles (I didn't just come here and make a stupid post as my first resort) but I still wasn't totally clear. I am actually looking for a substantial amount of detail which is why I couldn't just googletard this.

"Each state provides its own means for the nomination of electors"

Is there some sort of standard way most states do it? Do people vote on these at any point or just the party officials?

[/ QUOTE ]

The next few sentances right after the one you quoted explain the common methods used by states. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In some states, such as Oklahoma, the Electors are nominated in primaries the same way that other candidates are nominated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so who is nominating the electors? If I give a bunch of money can I nominate/be one? Once they are nominated is there a vote?

[MidGe]

I am thinking of trying to make this thread more interesting. I think the OP has been answered. The question I would put is why was this system of presidential election chosen.

I think I do know the answer but I may be wrong! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Case Closed]

You have it all wrong.

1. Candidates collect money
2. Candidate with most money wins

Voting is inconsequential.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
You have it all wrong.

1. Candidates collect money
2. Candidate with most money wins

Voting is inconsequential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Candidates that collect a lot of money generally are very popular and supported. You have it exactly backwards.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok me and my 2 friends had this debate today. FWIW we are all in college and I'm kinda said we don't all know this.

Basically we disagreed on how exactly electoral votes work. We can agree on the following

1. People in states vote, candidate in that state wins that state
2. ????
3. ????
4. president with most electoral votes wins!!

What are steps 2 and 3 exactly? Be somewhat specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have step 1 wrong. Every state decides how their electors are divided. In Colorado, they are split (winner of state gets 2), proportional basis for the rest (I think). California Republicans are trying to get California to do the same (with huge resistance from the Dems). I'm not sure if any other states do things this way, but the idea is becoming more popular.

[iron81]

For most states:

2. The election authorities in each state invite the winning candidate's delegates to cast electoral votes.
3. The delegates travel to each state capital and cast their votes.
4. The votes are brought to the US House and counted. A candidate with a majority of votes is the winner.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
For most states:

2. The election authorities in each state invite the winning candidate's delegates to cast electoral votes.
3. The delegates travel to each state capital and cast their votes.
4. The votes are brought to the US House and counted. A candidate with a majority of votes is the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's asking how person actually gets to be a delagate. Does anyone interested in being one just fill out a form, then they get voted in by the people? Or does each party select a few individuals then have voting?

[AngusThermopyle]

[ QUOTE ]
In Colorado, they are split (winner of state gets 2), proportional basis for the rest (I think).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nebraska and Maine are the only "proportional" states with 2 electors (ie those assigned for Senators) to the statewide winner and the rest by congressional district.

The rest of the states, including Colorado, are "winner take all".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For most states:

2. The election authorities in each state invite the winning candidate's delegates to cast electoral votes.
3. The delegates travel to each state capital and cast their votes.
4. The votes are brought to the US House and counted. A candidate with a majority of votes is the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's asking how person actually gets to be a delagate. Does anyone interested in being one just fill out a form, then they get voted in by the people? Or does each party select a few individuals then have voting?

[/ QUOTE ]

The candidate names his electors (in most states). When you go into the booth, you'll notice that the ballot looks something like this:

(tiny letters) delgates for

(big huge letters) GEORGE W BUSH

(tiny letters) joe schmoe, jane doe, etc.

The electors are chosen from *hardcore* party supporters, their loyalty is of utmost importantce because there's usually no legal requirement that an elector actually vote for the candidate he is pledged to. Electors have "defected" in the past. I believe one voted for Dan Quayle in 1992, for example.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have it all wrong.

1. Candidates collect money
2. Candidate with most money wins

Voting is inconsequential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Candidates that collect a lot of money generally are very popular and supported. You have it exactly backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]
My comment was meant to be mostly tongue and cheek.