Daycare.com Forum
Daycare Center and Family Home Forum>OT-Could Someone Explain The Election Results To Me
Country Kids 06:14 AM 11-07-2012
OK, we aren't a big voting family and I was actually thinking of voting this year but didn't. Then last night I thought why-I don't think my vote would have actually counted.
I was at a class last night and didn't get home till 9:00 or so. The results were already in and our polls had just shut down an hour earlier. We are West Coast time and Hawaii/Alaska still had time to vote because of their time changes.
So how could they actually say who won if voting was still open in some areas? Even if it was all computerized there were still states that were able to vote.
Maybe if someone could explain this to me, I might jump on board for the next election.
I was at a class last night and didn't get home till 9:00 or so. The results were already in and our polls had just shut down an hour earlier. We are West Coast time and Hawaii/Alaska still had time to vote because of their time changes.
So how could they actually say who won if voting was still open in some areas? Even if it was all computerized there were still states that were able to vote.
Maybe if someone could explain this to me, I might jump on board for the next election.
Meeko 06:29 AM 11-07-2012
It all depends on the electoral vote. Only so many per state. At some point, it becomes obvious that even if the challenger wins every single state from then on....he still won't have enough electoral votes to win. Thus. they can call the winner.
Willow 06:31 AM 11-07-2012
Funny, I think I just jumped off that train after being a vote vote vote thumper ever since I could vote......I am so over it all........
The winner of a presidential election is based on the electoral college, not how every individual *actually* votes. Each state gets a certain amount of EC "votes." This number varies by state. Some have only a few (This election Alaska and Wyoming have the fewest - 3, California has the most - 55).
Even if the vast majority of people in the nation vote against a candidate, if that candidate can manage to pluck enough EC "votes" by winning the states with the highest number of EC votes available, they can win the spot.
The EC was developed under the premise that the masses are too stupid to elect a qualified candidate as individuals. That power needs to be broken up and dispersed lest we all start getting our own ideas and influencing each other
It's an archaic disgusting system and I am ashamed we as American's are still putting up with it.......
(ETA - I let my daughter stay up until they pulled that trigger, to say she was devastated is an understatement. We emphasize that sportsmanship is important and supporting whoever is elected is respectful.....she was understandably jaded however that when she is old enough to vote her vote, HER contribution, will never count.....unless of course she moves to a different state that is allowed to have more of a contribution)
The winner of a presidential election is based on the electoral college, not how every individual *actually* votes. Each state gets a certain amount of EC "votes." This number varies by state. Some have only a few (This election Alaska and Wyoming have the fewest - 3, California has the most - 55).
Even if the vast majority of people in the nation vote against a candidate, if that candidate can manage to pluck enough EC "votes" by winning the states with the highest number of EC votes available, they can win the spot.
The EC was developed under the premise that the masses are too stupid to elect a qualified candidate as individuals. That power needs to be broken up and dispersed lest we all start getting our own ideas and influencing each other
It's an archaic disgusting system and I am ashamed we as American's are still putting up with it.......
(ETA - I let my daughter stay up until they pulled that trigger, to say she was devastated is an understatement. We emphasize that sportsmanship is important and supporting whoever is elected is respectful.....she was understandably jaded however that when she is old enough to vote her vote, HER contribution, will never count.....unless of course she moves to a different state that is allowed to have more of a contribution)
SilverSabre25 06:55 AM 11-07-2012
The thing is....that most Americans live with a delusional belief that we are a democracy.
WRONG!
It's a democratic republic. It's even in our pledge of allegience..."to the republic for which it stands."
Hence, the electoral college.
A true democracy would do things by popular vote, not the electoral college.
of course there are other major issues with our voting...such as the fact that it was never supposed to be a partisan system *at all* (that means the party system), and not a bipartisan system either. It wasn't supposed to be a system of "the richest one wins" (which many of the races are--whoever has more money to get their name out there wins it).
And let's face it; there's no easy, obvious, simple, accessible way to get information--GOOD information--about all the races and all teh candidates. Even in this digital age there's no one place to go to get unbiased info on every candidate for every race, every issue, every bond, every levy...it just doesn't exist. Someone want to help me make such a thing? I bet we could make a lot of money, somehow...I'm actually quite serious.
Voting was originally supposed to be INFORMED voting. Hence why women and slaves weren't able to do it...because it wasn't believed that they were smart enough to learn what they needed to make an INFORMED decision. <--stupid, obviously, but the idea was sound. But now...well, people vote with emotions, they vote blindly ("What the hell is a county commisioner anyway? And since when are sheriffs elected? I'll Vote Bob Lawless because that's funny!"), they vote along party lines which is NOT how the system was supposed to work.
Sorry...that got ranty. I hate politics and I hate our political system. I would caer if the system wasn't a joke.
And we're not a democracy. That's the biggest lie anyone in this country has ever told.
WRONG!
It's a democratic republic. It's even in our pledge of allegience..."to the republic for which it stands."
Hence, the electoral college.
A true democracy would do things by popular vote, not the electoral college.
of course there are other major issues with our voting...such as the fact that it was never supposed to be a partisan system *at all* (that means the party system), and not a bipartisan system either. It wasn't supposed to be a system of "the richest one wins" (which many of the races are--whoever has more money to get their name out there wins it).
And let's face it; there's no easy, obvious, simple, accessible way to get information--GOOD information--about all the races and all teh candidates. Even in this digital age there's no one place to go to get unbiased info on every candidate for every race, every issue, every bond, every levy...it just doesn't exist. Someone want to help me make such a thing? I bet we could make a lot of money, somehow...I'm actually quite serious.
Voting was originally supposed to be INFORMED voting. Hence why women and slaves weren't able to do it...because it wasn't believed that they were smart enough to learn what they needed to make an INFORMED decision. <--stupid, obviously, but the idea was sound. But now...well, people vote with emotions, they vote blindly ("What the hell is a county commisioner anyway? And since when are sheriffs elected? I'll Vote Bob Lawless because that's funny!"), they vote along party lines which is NOT how the system was supposed to work.
Sorry...that got ranty. I hate politics and I hate our political system. I would caer if the system wasn't a joke.
And we're not a democracy. That's the biggest lie anyone in this country has ever told.
SilverSabre25 06:58 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by Willow:
It's an archaic disgusting system and I am ashamed we as American's are still putting up with it.......
Lots of reasons; one being the mass-delusion that we're a democracy and that by voting we are taking part in the "democratic process". It's an archaic disgusting system and I am ashamed we as American's are still putting up with it.......
Also the fact that most Americans (the vast majority) are brainwashed to believe that there are only two sides.
And the complete lack of a simple way to be educated voters.
Live and Learn 07:09 AM 11-07-2012
I'm just glad that the actual votes and the electoral votes came up with the same winner. It is so irritating when they don't jive like in 2000.
Mom2TLE 07:25 AM 11-07-2012
This is a link to time for kids that the school sent home with DS who is in 6th grade:
http://www.timeforkids.com/photos-vi...g-states-54101
It kind of explains it in a quick easy not too political way.
http://www.timeforkids.com/photos-vi...g-states-54101
It kind of explains it in a quick easy not too political way.
Sunchimes 07:25 AM 11-07-2012
Actually, I think the electoral college was based less on the opinions of people's intellect as it was the vastness of America. Joe Politician is well known in Boston, but due to the distances, no one in less populous Delaware has heard of him. And maybe there is a really great candidate in Delaware who has no chance because there are so few voters in Delaware. That gives Joe an unfair advantage because he has more voters in his area--making Massachusetts a very powerful place with no interest in Delaware.
By forming an electoral college, it spread out the power some. If they had telegraphs or the internet then, it might have been a different story. Is it obsolete now? Maybe, the argument could certainly be made. But, for the situation at the beginning, it was a genius solution.
And even as late as the late 19th century, with such vast territory, how would those in Montana know or have a say?
I am not a political person, so I may have the details off, but it is what I was taught.
By forming an electoral college, it spread out the power some. If they had telegraphs or the internet then, it might have been a different story. Is it obsolete now? Maybe, the argument could certainly be made. But, for the situation at the beginning, it was a genius solution.
And even as late as the late 19th century, with such vast territory, how would those in Montana know or have a say?
I am not a political person, so I may have the details off, but it is what I was taught.
Willow 07:27 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by SilverSabre25:
Lots of reasons; one being the mass-delusion that we're a democracy and that by voting we are taking part in the "democratic process".
Also the fact that most Americans (the vast majority) are brainwashed to believe that there are only two sides.
And the complete lack of a simple way to be educated voters.
Lots of reasons; one being the mass-delusion that we're a democracy and that by voting we are taking part in the "democratic process".
Also the fact that most Americans (the vast majority) are brainwashed to believe that there are only two sides.
And the complete lack of a simple way to be educated voters.
Stop talking!
My blood pressure is high enough!!!!!!!
SilverSabre25 07:35 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by Willow:
Stop talking!
My blood pressure is high enough!!!!!!!
but...I'm not talking! Stop talking!
My blood pressure is high enough!!!!!!!
I'm typing. [innocent look].
And anyway you asked...i answered...
Willow 07:35 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by Sunchimes:
Actually, I think the electoral college was based less on the opinions of people's intellect as it was the vastness of America. Joe Politician is well known in Boston, but due to the distances, no one in less populous Delaware has heard of him. And maybe there is a really great candidate in Delaware who has no chance because there are so few voters in Delaware. That gives Joe an unfair advantage because he has more voters in his area--making Massachusetts a very powerful place with no interest in Delaware.
By forming an electoral college, it spread out the power some. If they had telegraphs or the internet then, it might have been a different story. Is it obsolete now? Maybe, the argument could certainly be made. But, for the situation at the beginning, it was a genius solution.
And even as late as the late 19th century, with such vast territory, how would those in Montana know or have a say?
I am not a political person, so I may have the details off, but it is what I was taught.
Actually, I think the electoral college was based less on the opinions of people's intellect as it was the vastness of America. Joe Politician is well known in Boston, but due to the distances, no one in less populous Delaware has heard of him. And maybe there is a really great candidate in Delaware who has no chance because there are so few voters in Delaware. That gives Joe an unfair advantage because he has more voters in his area--making Massachusetts a very powerful place with no interest in Delaware.
By forming an electoral college, it spread out the power some. If they had telegraphs or the internet then, it might have been a different story. Is it obsolete now? Maybe, the argument could certainly be made. But, for the situation at the beginning, it was a genius solution.
And even as late as the late 19th century, with such vast territory, how would those in Montana know or have a say?
I am not a political person, so I may have the details off, but it is what I was taught.
Unfortunately, you were taught wrong.
http://www.historycentral.com/electi...collgewhy.html
Willow 07:36 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by SilverSabre25:
but...I'm not talking!
I'm typing. [innocent look].
And anyway you asked...i answered...
but...I'm not talking!
I'm typing. [innocent look].
And anyway you asked...i answered...
I most certainly did not ask! Don't put that on me!!!
SilverSabre25 07:41 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by Willow:
I most certainly did not ask! Don't put that on me!!!
You have a point. I went back and reread it. I beg your pardon. I most certainly did not ask! Don't put that on me!!!
But anyway you left the door wwiiiiiiiide open!
It is something that needs talked about though. And some americans aren't putting up with it...I did a lot of soul-searching about whether I should even vote in the election because of the basic way in which I disagree with the process the country uses. everyone who gets educated, realizes the issues with the system, and starts questioning it is the beginning of change.
Willow 07:42 AM 11-07-2012
Willow 07:43 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by SilverSabre25:
You have a point. I went back and reread it. I beg your pardon.
But anyway you left the door wwiiiiiiiide open!
It is something that needs talked about though. And some americans aren't putting up with it...I did a lot of soul-searching about whether I should even vote in the election because of the basic way in which I disagree with the process the country uses. everyone who gets educated, realizes the issues with the system, and starts questioning it is the beginning of change.
You have a point. I went back and reread it. I beg your pardon.
But anyway you left the door wwiiiiiiiide open!
It is something that needs talked about though. And some americans aren't putting up with it...I did a lot of soul-searching about whether I should even vote in the election because of the basic way in which I disagree with the process the country uses. everyone who gets educated, realizes the issues with the system, and starts questioning it is the beginning of change.
Completely agree
shelby 07:46 AM 11-07-2012
I was still in line waiting to vote, when they called my state's EC votes... I don't think that should of happened!
Sunchimes 08:42 AM 11-07-2012
I may have been educated long, long ago, but I was sure I didn't dream this. Obviously my memory simplified it, but I think it was a contributing factor.
"Other delegates opposed direct election because they believed that there would be as many as five presidential candidates from the different regions of the country who would split the vote. As a result, they reasoned that the winning candidate would only have the support of a small minority of the total electorate and little national appeal. George Mason of Virginia noted that the extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the Candidates. Still other delegates opposed direct election because they feared that candidates from the heavily populated states would win most of the time."
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/directelect/page2.html
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...ge_history.php
Obviously my memory simplified it, but I think it was a contributing factor. "Other delegates opposed direct election because they believed that there would be as many as five presidential candidates from the different regions of the country who would split the vote. As a result, they reasoned that the winning candidate would only have the support of a small minority of the total electorate and little national appeal. George Mason of Virginia noted that the extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the Candidates. Still other delegates opposed direct election because they feared that candidates from the heavily populated states would win most of the time."
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/directelect/page2.html
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATI...ge_history.php
crazydaycarelady 09:04 AM 11-07-2012
I voted last night after questioning if it really makes a difference anyway. We are a state with very few EC votes so we are largely ingnored by the candidates. We had long lines of people still waiting to vote when they called the race. I think that is soooo disrespectful. Basically it confirms that YOUR VOTE DOES NOT COUNT!
Live and Learn 09:30 AM 11-07-2012
I agree that the news stations should not project a winner until everyone in line is done voting. Fox news irritates me the most. I can't even watch them.....But you do realize that even if they project a winner on election night the election officials still count every vote and would correct the projected winner if need be and allocate the electoral delegates properly. Your vote still counts. It just might be that your vote is consistently in the minority way of thinking so it feels like it doesn't count.
I'm so glad the election is done. No more ads and robo calls.
Country Kids 09:36 AM 11-07-2012
I'm not sure if this is true but I heard Florida still isn't done with the counts? They also seem to always be last with it!
Also, is it true that CA. has 55 electorial votes?
Also, is it true that CA. has 55 electorial votes?
Willow 10:23 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by Country Kids:
Also, is it true that CA. has 55 electorial votes?
Also, is it true that CA. has 55 electorial votes?
This year, yes.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepol...s-By-State.htm
itlw8 10:24 AM 11-07-2012
Originally Posted by Country Kids:
I'm not sure if this is true but I heard Florida still isn't done with the counts? They also seem to always be last with it!
Also, is it true that CA. has 55 electorial votes?
Yes I just looked it up.... Missouri lost one this year we went from 11 to 10. it is based on population.I'm not sure if this is true but I heard Florida still isn't done with the counts? They also seem to always be last with it!
Also, is it true that CA. has 55 electorial votes?
spud912 12:51 PM 11-07-2012
Thank you so much for that link! I was trying to tell my dh last night that they should re-evaluate state populations and change the electoral numbers annually using mathematical calculations based on population changes. This just confirms that they do in fact do this, which makes me glad.