Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 4

message: Should this be on its own page?  This article is about the Electoral College, not ways to circumvent it. Dubc0724 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Squeezing a national popular vote out of the current system by changing state election law no more "circumvents" the Electoral College than any other proposal for a national popular vote. I am more sympathetic to the view that all reform proposals be split into another article, since there are so many and since there continues to be a fair amount of controversy surrounding which ones to include here. I am, however, steadfastly opposed to any statement that a constititional amendment is required to change the current system (which could reappear as soon as the 'squeezing' section is removed) . As the 'squeezing' alternative proves, that is simply a falsehood. --Pgva 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Squeezing a direct popular election out of the current system

message: I would like to know how much the electoral delgates get renumerated? Suburban Boy 14:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine by renumerated you are asking how the states get the number of electors they possess? States are allowed a number of presidential electors equal to their representation in Congress. For instance, Texas currently has 32 representatives in the House and 2 Senators, equaling a total of 34 representatives. Thus, they receive a total 34 electoral votes. Seats in the House are reapportioned to the States every 10 years in consequence of the census to reflect changes in population amongst the States.  This reapportionment of House seats affects the number of electors, changing in tandem with the State's gain or loss. (e.g. after the reapportionment, if North Carolina gained 2 seats in the House, NC then gets 2 extra electoral votes).  The smallest number of electors a State can have is 3, as the Constitution guarantees each State 2 senators and 1 House seat. Foofighter20x 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  He was asking how much they get paid. Alsee 03:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is ever truly "on" the Electoral College as it is a completely transitory body. What I mean is: the electoral college is elected solely for the purpose of voting for President and Vice-President. Once the college has completed it's constitutional task, it then disbands until the next presidential election, when new electors are chosen. If you are interested as to who will be selected as electors for the next Presidential election, wait until late in the summer before the next presidential election and then contact the office of your State's Secretary of State, as they will have a list (known as a slate) of names the political parties have nominated to be electors for their presidential candidate. Foofighter20x 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's in it? 

message: "...Some have argued that the French system creates problems of its own; it is possible that the initial vote becomes divided up between so many candidates that someone who is highly undesirable to most voters can make it to the second round of voting, as occurred in 2002 with the rise of candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen to the runoff election..."
"Highly undesirable" is a wrong term: if a candidate got enough votes to go to the second round, it means that a large number of voters "desires" the candidate to be president!
:The article on Jean-Marie Le Pen explains why the French considered him highly undesirable.  He is used as an example of the flaws in the French system because he received 16.8% of the vote.  He got the second round of elections due the fact that there were so many people running.  The issue is that with more people running, the cutoff percent potentially gets lower and lower until you could possible have a guy make it to the second round with less than 1% of the vote (I admit that it would take half of France to run for election to get that low - but this is an extreme examples). Kainaw 19:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely this is a specious argument? As the first comment points out 16% of voters supported Le Pen in the first round - a large number of people. In the second round he increased his support to only 17.8% and was soundly defeated by Chirac. So, while the majority of the French do see him as unsuitable, 17.8% see him as suitable - but that isn't enough to elect him (or anywhere near it). It in no way invalidates the process. The popular choice was elected (unlike the US system where a president doesn't need to get a majority popular vote to win). --Nickj69 14:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Systems 

message: Hello all, I just introduced a number of subheadings into the text to divide it up more clearly. I also introduced a number of diverse additional points to different aspects of the Pro-and-Con arguments and slightly reordered some paragraphs. I believe the additional material to be factual and NPOV, and I believe the subheadings increase clarity. I hope this is OK with the other contributors. All the best, -- 84.57.79.215 17:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduced some more subheadings and some more points to the different arguments 

message: Look at the top of the article, its there, twice. My inexperince at editing means im mising ot on how to change it so there it is there only once. Chrismullan
:That's not all - almost the entire article is repeated twice.  I don't want to pick through all the edits to see which is the most up-to-date, so I'm simply removing the second half of the repetition.  This has been caused by people now knowing how to revert.  If you want to revert, go to the history, click on the date of the version that you want to revert to, click Edit This Page (you will see a warning that it is an old version), and save it.  Don't try to cut and paste old versions on top of new ones. Kainaw 15:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction paragragh has been repeated 

message: On January 2, User:Susurrus spun off the "Pro and Con" section to the article Pros and Cons of the U.S. Electoral College.  Then some user (I don't know who anymore as they didn't write anything on the talk page and the comments in the history went to the Great Bit-Bucket in the Sky) wrote that they would delete this article because its content was duplicated in this article.  Now I want to make it clear:  the content was not duplicated, because Susurrus had removed the content from this article when it was spun off.  Nonetheless, even though I noted the fact that the content was non-duplicative on the talk page for "Pros and Cons of the U.S. Electoral College", I found today that the article had been removed.  Therefore, I have restored the "Pros and cons" section to this article.
— DLJessup 02:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pros and cons 

message: Hello, I just restored the "Pros and Cons" section, which had been deleted without comment again on March 9 (why delete it?) -- 84.58.45.131 23:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored "Pros and Cons" again