would someone please explain!
- Thread starter BuddyLee
- Start date
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
I'm assuming that you know from school that technically, what you've said is not true, it just seems that way from the media.
Iowa and New Hampshire (not Vermont) are the first two caucauses/primaries in the country. Being that there is no other voting to report on, the media focuses very heavily on these two states. Because the media does, the candidates do because they need to get their name in the press in order to get name recognition from the rest of the country.
The winners get more press, leading to more name recognition in the other states, leading to more votes in the other states. Statistically, the winner in these two states takes the nomination.
Iowa and New Hampshire (not Vermont) are the first two caucauses/primaries in the country. Being that there is no other voting to report on, the media focuses very heavily on these two states. Because the media does, the candidates do because they need to get their name in the press in order to get name recognition from the rest of the country.
The winners get more press, leading to more name recognition in the other states, leading to more votes in the other states. Statistically, the winner in these two states takes the nomination.
I have a question too. Let's say Howard Dean is the winner in the various primaries by a small margin. Do the Dems have to give him the nomination or can they pick another candidate?
Dymphna
Loyalty, Friendship, Love
In most states, you are not electing the candidate, you are electing representatives to the convention. In Maryland, you used to elected those people individually and their stated preferences appeared on the ballot, now you elect them as a group by voting for your prefered candidate. The conventions reps are allowed to vote their conscience, they are technically allowed to change their mind, but as a rule they don't, unless their candidate drops out. It's a violation of the voters' trust to change their vote.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
The primary just elects the delegates, they can in turn vote for anybody at the convention. I believe they are not legally bound to vote for any specific candidate. Dean could win in the primarys and then a dark horse, say Jesse Ventura could announce he is running under the dem ticket. All the delegates could then vote for Ventura and his name would appear on the national ballot.
I'm sure some of the political "wizards" on this forum can cite you chapter and verse of this happening in isolated incidents in the past. I seem to recall some delegates changing their votes during the '60s. But I don't know any specific examples.
Another way this political system is hosed, kind of like the electoral college.
I'm sure some of the political "wizards" on this forum can cite you chapter and verse of this happening in isolated incidents in the past. I seem to recall some delegates changing their votes during the '60s. But I don't know any specific examples.
Another way this political system is hosed, kind of like the electoral college.
One of those "representative republic" things. I was just curious if the delegates ever go against the popular candidate.
And while I'm at it, anyone know offhand of when the electoral college might have gone against the popular state vote in a presidential election? And don't say, "Yeah, 2000" because Bush won Florida fair and square.
SurfaceTension
New Member
"The electoral college system generally gives all of a state's electoral votes to the winner in that state, no matter how slim the margin. Thus it has happened that candidates have been elected even though they received fewer popular votes than their opponents. Both Rutherford B. HAYES, in 1876, and Benjamin HARRISON, in 1888, were elected in this manner. In the case of Hayes, a special electoral commission was called in 1877 to decide the contested returns.
"John Quincy ADAMS also received fewer popular votes than his opponent, Andrew JACKSON, in the election of 1824, but his election was decided by the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES because Jackson failed to win a majority of electoral college votes. On several occasions the popular vote pluralities of the electoral college victors have been razor thin or even questionable. One instance was the election of John F. KENNEDY over Richard M. NIXON in 1960."
From:
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/elecollg.html
"John Quincy ADAMS also received fewer popular votes than his opponent, Andrew JACKSON, in the election of 1824, but his election was decided by the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES because Jackson failed to win a majority of electoral college votes. On several occasions the popular vote pluralities of the electoral college victors have been razor thin or even questionable. One instance was the election of John F. KENNEDY over Richard M. NIXON in 1960."
From:
http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/elecollg.html
I think you DO know about Harrison and Hayes, from the way you stated your question. Are you asking, did the slate of electors from a given state simply choose to vote another way, against the way the election required? To my knowledge, there have been only a handful or so of faithless electors, and it was never the entire slate, but always just one person.
"The primary just elects the delegates, they can in turn vote for anybody at the convention. I believe they are not legally bound to vote for any specific candidate."
But I'm pretty sure that if no candidate is selected on the first ballot, all bets are off. They could absolutely nominate anyone, although typically, if someone isn't nominated on the first ballot, they don't stand a great chance of winning the national election. It just happens that way.
"I'm sure some of the political "wizards" on this forum can cite you chapter and verse of this happening in isolated incidents in the past."
Well thank you. Since you put it in quotes, I suppose you may not have meant it as a compliment. But from those here I know, they actually read instead of rely on sound bites from TV. After seeing how caucuses in Iowa actually *work*, I'm inclined to wonder if the election process wouldn't be better served by a more drawn out process, requiring effort on the part of the citizenry.
"Another way this political system is hosed, kind of like the electoral college."
I *like* the way this system works, especially in comparison to other countries I've seen, and I like the electoral college for exactly the reasons it was designed.
Hamilton, in Federalist #68
[The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. ]
They designed it specifically so that a few populous states could not dominate the rest of the nation. You couldn't have it so that being popular in just a dozen population centers would be sufficient to be elected - you had to have support of some measure everywhere. I agree with this idea; this is the "tyranny of the majority" idea so often trumpeted by the Democratic party. It's why we DON'T have a democracy but a republic, so that everyone gets a voice, even if it's a small one.
I like it this way.
But I'm pretty sure that if no candidate is selected on the first ballot, all bets are off. They could absolutely nominate anyone, although typically, if someone isn't nominated on the first ballot, they don't stand a great chance of winning the national election. It just happens that way.
"I'm sure some of the political "wizards" on this forum can cite you chapter and verse of this happening in isolated incidents in the past."
Well thank you. Since you put it in quotes, I suppose you may not have meant it as a compliment. But from those here I know, they actually read instead of rely on sound bites from TV. After seeing how caucuses in Iowa actually *work*, I'm inclined to wonder if the election process wouldn't be better served by a more drawn out process, requiring effort on the part of the citizenry.
"Another way this political system is hosed, kind of like the electoral college."
I *like* the way this system works, especially in comparison to other countries I've seen, and I like the electoral college for exactly the reasons it was designed.
Hamilton, in Federalist #68
[The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. ]
They designed it specifically so that a few populous states could not dominate the rest of the nation. You couldn't have it so that being popular in just a dozen population centers would be sufficient to be elected - you had to have support of some measure everywhere. I agree with this idea; this is the "tyranny of the majority" idea so often trumpeted by the Democratic party. It's why we DON'T have a democracy but a republic, so that everyone gets a voice, even if it's a small one.
I like it this way.