how is a president elected?

garrettwombat

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
1,273
i got to thinking about it...
and there is no set rule for how someone becomes president.
the constitution says nothing...
we vote out of tradition...

is there anywhere legally bounding an election to office?

just curious not trying to make a point or anything...
 
Electoral College (United States)

Electoral College (United States)

The Electoral College is the body of representatives which formally elects the President and Vice President of the United States.

Rather than directly voting for the President and Vice President, U.S. citizens cast votes for electoral college representatives, known as electors. While electors are theoretically free to vote for the candidate of their choice, in practice they pledge to vote for specific candidates.[1] Thus, voters indirectly vote for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors.[2] Because all of the electors from a state will generally vote for the Presidential candidate that receives the most votes in that state, U.S. Presidential campaigns concentrate on winning the popular vote in a combination of states that choose a majority of the electors, rather than campaigning to win the most votes nationally.

The Electoral College is composed of 538 electors.[3] Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress. Additionally, the District of Columbia is given a number of electors equal to the number held by the smallest states.[4] U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College.

Each elector casts two votes: one for President and one for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a 270-vote majority of the Electoral College. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the House of Representatives.[5] Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.[6]

The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors. Although not originally the case in a majority of states, at present, 48 states and the District of Columbia have adopted a winner-take-all popular vote rule –– voters choose between statewide slates of electors pledged to vote for a specific Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes in the state wins the support of all of that state’s electors. Two other states, Maine and Nebraska, use a tiered system where a single elector is chosen within each Congressional district and two electors are chosen by statewide popular vote. Because the vast majority of electors are chosen by a statewide vote, U.S. Presidential elections are effectively an amalgamation of 51 separate and simultaneous first past the post elections, rather than a single national election.

Candidates with less than a plurality of the nationwide popular vote can win a Presidential election. This has happened on several occasions in American history.[7] Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate clout in selecting the President and Vice President. Adherents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of the federal system, and protects the rights of smaller states. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.

Check out the Texas Legislature Voting: It's all about Integrity!
 
Last edited:
I know it's popular for the Democrats, but should we be pursuing a national popular vote amendment? I mean, didn't the founders set up the electoral college for logistical reasons?
 
I know it's popular for the Democrats, but should we be pursuing a national popular vote amendment? I mean, didn't the founders set up the electoral college for logistical reasons?

A national popular vote would be horrible. No way. We absolutely have to have the electoral votes in each states be the number it is now (number in house + number in senate). Otherwise only the big state matter at all. It is already based on the population in each state. Making a national popular vote would be like getting rid of the senate. Now I might consider having a state's votes be proportional not winner take all but I could never support a popular vote.
 
Well, I understand some historic elections would've gone the other way if there was no electoral college, but is it really right to seemingly disenfranchise millions of voters? I mean, think of all the Republicans in California that have their votes fall by the wayside because of the overabundance of Democrats in the state.
 
How is a president elected? Through the glorious use of hanging chads and malfunctioning Diebold systems!
 
Well, I understand some historic elections would've gone the other way if there was no electoral college, but is it really right to seemingly disenfranchise millions of voters? I mean, think of all the Republicans in California that have their votes fall by the wayside because of the overabundance of Democrats in the state.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the electoral college. That is just how CA decided to divide up the votes. They could have divided the votes up proportionally but they decided to do winner take all instead. Each state getting the number of votes as they have house and senate seats is way better than a nation wide popular vote.
 
Getting rid of the electoral college would be horrible. Here are just a couple of many problems with having the President decided by a national popular vote:
1) Each state has different ballot access regulations. In theory someone could win the Presidency today just by achieving access in a handful of states. This wouldn't be possible with a national popular vote. The only way around this would be to have a uniform system of ballot-access laws...but that would violate State Sovereignty to a horrible degree.
2) Each community has different ways of casting ballots. In the case of a close race how would you have a nation wide recount? You could get around this by having the feds adopt a uniform way of casting ballots but that would violate State Sovereignty to a horrible degree.

The electoral college works just fine.
 
Be aware that states are trying to enact a National Popular Vote plan, wherein they throw all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.
 
As large and diverse as our nation is, with a few highly populated cities, a person running for President in a non-elecoral college environment cond concievably say, "If I become President, I will cut $5,000 checks to every citzen of New York, Chicago, Atlanta, and Los Angeles." and thus win the Presidency. They would be President of 4 cities rather than President of the nation.

The Electoral College was originally supposed to be one of the lynchpins that distinguished us as a Republic rather than a Democracy.
 
A national popular vote would be horrible. No way. We absolutely have to have the electoral votes in each states be the number it is now (number in house + number in senate). Otherwise only the big state matter at all. It is already based on the population in each state. Making a national popular vote would be like getting rid of the senate. Now I might consider having a state's votes be proportional not winner take all but I could never support a popular vote.

yup. However, we should go back to the old days when the congress appointed the senators.
 
If anything, it seems biased, and un-democratic.

And... Why should Primaries for party nominations be heavily influenced by states that are the first "cab off the rank?"
 
So states with the largest voting populations are overly saturated with election-eering, and pork barelling, whilst less populated states are ignored?

hmm. I don't know how you came to THAT conclusion. ;) but wouldn't states with less people just be ignored all the same in a popular vote scenario?
 
hmm. I don't know how you came to THAT conclusion. ;) but wouldn't states with less people just be ignored all the same in a popular vote scenario?

Yes, to a certain extent.

But certainly to a lesser extent than is current.

Another example of the inequity of the current system is in the candidates selection of running-mates.

A Vice Presidential nominee is often selected on which state he resides in due to Electoral College votes.

For example, a running mate is more likely to be selected from Texas than Montana.

These are not "hard and fast" rules,
but they are obvious nuances that are worth consideration.
 
Actually, the candidates have to spend MORE attention on less populated states BECAUSE of the electoral college. The electoral college points to our being a Republic because Presidents are elected state-by-state rather than nationally. States are allotted representation based on the House (proportional to population) and Senate (all states equal) combined.

Indeed, the two allotted for Senators do little to ameliorate the large population differences when faced with scores of Representatives, but they do do something. A good example is when Bush won in 2000, yes he lost the popular vote, but won something like 85% of the counties. Look at the county-by-county maps that were almost entirely red, with a few blue splotches around the high population density areas.

The Electoral College lends us toward a Republic rather than a Democracy because a candidate has to campaign EVERYWHERE rather than only in the 5 to 10 most populated cities only.

The Democrats want to do away with the Electoral College, because they tend to be more 'democratic' and will vote their constituents funds from the public treasury. The Republicans want to keep it because they tend more 'republican' and will vote for the 'good of the republic' despite what the people ask for.

I mean, not that our current crop of republicans qualify as voting for the good of the republic mind you...

But the Founders were adamant that they did not want a Democracy in the US, but a Republic. Democracies inevitably succumb to tyranny, and democracies always begin to fail once the public realizes that they can vote for the guy who will pay them at the expense of others.

If we were a straight democracy in the US, then the lower density populations would be constantly being robbed to give to the higher density populations, thus assuring Presidents would hold on to power. A straight democracy will inevitably become irrevocably socialist, and the US's movement in the last 80 some odd years towards rejecting republicanism and adopting democracy (something the Founders unilaterally rejected!) has been primarily responsible for our nations movement towards socialism.
 
Back
Top