Hi

This question is not about politics rather it's about political system.

I have just read that the Republicans have majority in the House of Representatives. Obama is a Democrat which means when he was elected the Democrats had majority, otherwise he won't be elected, right? So, when did this rearrangement of the numbers in the house took place? Are the Republicans also in majority in the senate?

Thank you for the information.

Regards
PG

 

Hi

This question is not about politics rather it's about political system.

I have just read that the Republicans have majority in the House of Representatives. Obama is a Democrat which means when he was elected the Democrats had majority, otherwise he won't be elected, right? So, when did this rearrangement of the numbers in the house took place? Are the Republicans also in majority in the senate?

Thank you for the information.

Regards
PG

The people elect the president, not the members of the house.
Republicans took the house last year I believe http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/02/republicans-majority-house/

 

Hi

This question is not about politics rather it's about political system.

I have just read that the Republicans have majority in the House of Representatives. Obama is a Democrat which means when he was elected the Democrats had majority, otherwise he won't be elected, right? So, when did this rearrangement of the numbers in the house took place? Are the Republicans also in majority in the senate?

Thank you for the information.

Regards
PG

The President
The Senate
The House of Representatives

These are all separate elections voted on by the US people.

 

The people elect the president, not the members of the house.

Thanks for the information. Then, how are the members of the house and senate elected? Do they have separate elections for them? Would you please tell me? Thanks.

 

Hello,

This article might shed some light on the subject:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_American_election_system_work

Bertus

 

The people elect the president, not the members of the house.

No, the people elect other people who comprise the Electorial College. The Electorial College elects the President and Vice President.

The people directly elect two senators from their state and their own member to the House of Representatives apportioned by their state.

The Constitution of the United States frames the electorial process.

 

Beat me to it Joe, it is a common misconception that the President and Vice President are elected by common vote. I think it has only been twice that the popular vote and the electoral vote has differed, Bush Jr being one of them.

 

No, the people elect other people who comprise the Electorial College. The Electorial College elects the President and Vice President.

The people directly elect two senators from their state and their own member to the House of Representatives apportioned by their state.

The Constitution of the United States frames the electorial process.

You are right. I didn't realize that the electoral college was actually people. I thought the electoral college vote just represented popular votes from sections of each state. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html says the electoral voters don't even have to vote with any regard for the popular vote in half the states. So what's the point in going to the voters booth if your vote really doesn't mean anything anyway? This pisses me off. Why can nothing be directly voted on by the public? Why do we always have to vote for someone who is supposed to make important decisions for us?

 

So what's the point in going to the voters booth if your vote really doesn't mean anything anyway?

It is extremely rare for an elector to vote against his party's candidate.

As a resident of a low-population, rural state I am somewhat biased in favor of the electoral college system. If presidential elections were decided entirely by popular vote there would be almost no incentive for candidates to "work" for votes outside of major population centers.

If all states adopted the congressional district method of awarding a state's electoral votes I think things would be a bit more equitable (vs. the winner-take-all system, but again I'm biased living in one of only two states that do this.)

 

So what's the point in going to the voters booth if your vote really doesn't mean anything anyway?

The electorial college electors represent your state. Their number equals the number of senators and representatives from your state. In larger states, the larger population pushes up the popular vote but does not change the electorial college. In most states it's a winner take all. Some states now want to apportion their electorial college vote according to the election results. Those that want to split their vote is fine. Take a large state with a diverse voting block using that system, the winner, who may get the majority of the electors for that state still could lose. If they lose by the apportioned elector numbers, that state will be crying the blues about changing the rules. Woe is them.

If the U.S. elections were to go the popular vote route, the President would only have to campaign in a few major areas to get elected. This would leave the smaller states and communities without a voice.

On a good note, Texas picked up quite a few new members in congress so their electorial college numbers increase as well. Those that lost congressional members, sorry to hear of your plight.

 

I get the purpose of the electoral college system - like you guys said - to give a voice to the populations outside the major city centers. I agree with the idea but I don't see why we need a person there to do it. If it worked the way I thought it worked previously, I think that would be a better system. Each state would have its number of electoral votes just as they do, but those votes would automatically go with majority vote from that state. Why do we need one person there to make the final call where the vote will go? the people have already spoken. I don't care if they do almost always go with the majority. just the fact that they stand between my vote and the election makes my vote pointless. Even if they voted the same as I did, it would be their vote that influences the election, not mine.

 

The original intent of the founding fathers was a federal government, which should have control of NATIONAL issues like currency, defense and foreign affairs. The STATES were to be the top most form of government for the people, with little input or influence from D.C. In this system your vote would count AND be important in the statewide elections for governor and assembly. The STATE government was intended to be the influential one in a citizens life, not the federal government.
Since things have changed from that intended design, we now have an elected federal government leader overseeing our lives, which we for the most part have little say in electing. The federal branch has steadily and slowly stolen the powers of governance from the states over the last 120-150 years.

 

In the two GWB elections, there was talk of the electors really don't have to vote for who the people selected them to vote for.

In the event of a national crisis, say the President Elect died before the electors met, they could change their vote if they think the Vice President Elect is incapable of performing the duties of the President.

It's not likely to happen, but, the talking heads really tried to put forth that scenario during both GWB elections.

Those select to be electors are party faithful. Their names appear on the ballots.

 

Don't forget the part the Supreme Court played In the Bush- Gore
elections and remember the best attorneys won.

 

Don't forget the part the Supreme Court played In the Bush- Gore
elections and remember the best attorneys won.

I remember the "chads" debate. It didn't matter to Al Gore Jr's Legal Team that the rules stated "three of the four corners must be disconnected" ... they argued intent and the slightest indentation in the Gore column they wanted for The "Senator's Son", Al Gore Jr.

The FL Supreme Court made that election a joke by overturning the democrat judge's lower court ruling.

Of course, who could forget that Al Gore conceeded the election, then retracted his concession.

What part did the national media play, announcing it for Gore, discouraging those in the FL panhandle from voting, as the polls didn't close for an hour when the announcement was made.

 

No passion,deep down the history think on his part. He had credit in his mind
for the internet,he needed the green house gas A billion dollar high.

 

He had credit in his mind for the internet...

Al shouldn't be thinking when he is not use to that activity.

 

When I went to the Philippines last year there were signs all over advertising "Al Gore Live in Manila". I chuckled. I guess we laughed him out of America. I guess he's going around to other countries who aren't aware of his claims to the internet and spreading his gospel of global warming.

 

Just to scare you a little further, there is nothing in the constitution that states members of the electoral college will be selected from a popular vote. A state is free to choose them however the state decides. A state legislature could vote, a governor could pick, heck, as long as it is valid state law a game of tiddly winks could pick.

 

Just to scare you a little further, there is nothing in the constitution that states members of the electoral college will be selected from a popular vote. A state is free to choose them however the state decides. A state legislature could vote, a governor could pick, heck, as long as it is valid state law a game of tiddly winks could pick.

This just keeps getting better and better.

The point I was trying to make a few posts back is that just because the electors are almost always party faithful and almost always vote with the majority doesn't make it OK in my book. Its like driving a car that almost always doesn't overheat. If there were a condition in your car that lent potential to your car ever overheating, you would change that wouldn't you? Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't or can't; and it doesn't need to be that way. When you live with the potential for something undesirable happening, just because it hasn't happened yet, you take the control out of your own hands.