And one Kerry elector in Minnesota in 2004 voted for vice presidential candidate John Edwards for both president and vice president – an apparent mistake, since none of Minnesota’s electors admitted to the action afterward.
And one Kerry elector in Minnesota in 2004 voted for vice presidential candidate John Edwards for both president and vice president – an apparent mistake, since none of Minnesota’s electors admitted to the action afterward.Tags: Egyptian Writing PaperTypes Of Reasoning In Critical ThinkingCollege Essay On Life Changing ExperienceTravel AssignmentsBrown Creative WritingKids Should Have No HomeworkStanford Creative Writing FellowshipGrading Rubric For Term PapersAll The Years Of Her Life By Morley Callaghan EssayObama Thesis Princeton
Yes, some of this year’s Republican electors may not have been big supporters of Donald Trump’s candidacy. Since 2000, a popular argument for the electoral college made on conservative websites and talk radio is that without the Electoral College, candidates would spend all their time campaigning in big cities and would ignore low-population areas.
But despite the best efforts of some Clinton voters to get them to switch sides, there’s no evidence that some electors may consider voting for someone like Paul Ryan to prevent a Trump majority and throw the election into the U. Other than this odd view of democracy, which advocates spending as much campaign time in areas where few people live as in areas where most Americans live, the argument is simply false.
With the rise of the two-party system, the modern Electoral College continued to evolve.
By the 1820s, most states began to pass laws allowing voters, not state legislatures, to choose electors on a winner-take-all basis.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, won Massachusetts by almost a million votes but earned only 11 electoral votes.
The winner-take-all electoral system explains why one candidate can get more votes nationwide while a different candidate wins in the Electoral College.Until recently, the subject of the Electoral College only caught the attention of American citizens every four years – a time when people are reminded that it is the number of electoral votes, and not the popular vote, which determines who will be the next president.Political pundits would often note that the candidate who received the most votes might not be the candidate winning the electoral vote.Since winner-take-all laws began in the 1820s, electors have rarely acted independently or against the wishes of the party that chose them.A majority of states even have laws requiring the partisan electors to keep their pledges when voting.On a date set by Congress, state legislatures would choose a set of electors who would later convene in their respective state capitals to cast votes for president.Because there were no political parties back then, it was assumed that electors would use their best judgment to choose a president.For the last year, the history of the Electoral College and attempts to reform it have been studied by Megan Baker, a senior who graduated last week from Southern.She wrote about this subject for her Honors College thesis.But while many voters understood that it could happen in theory, it hadn’t actually occurred since the 19 century. In both years, the winner of the electoral vote was not the winner of the popular vote. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 election, while Republican Donald Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.The results frustrated many Democratic activists and even some rank-and-file voters.