Korean Job Discussion Forums

[nate2008]

I was reading a few threads about McCain and Obama and there seem to be a significant number of people who seem to think that elections can be "fixed", or the outcome can somehow be predetermined by a select group of individuals. In this thread, I am going to explain how this is simply not the case, and how our method of choosing the President is actually very undemocratic. If this sort of thing bores you, don't read.

In America, we do not vote for the presidential candidates. We vote for "electors": members of the electoral college. Those electoral college voters are party-affiliated, meaning that if Obama wins the general election in a state, that state's democratic electoral voters will be given the right to vote in the electoral college. But the kicker is that these voters are not obligated to vote for the candidate of the party with which they are affiliated. The voters then cast their votes on behalf of a candidate of their choice.

Theoretically, Obama could win a state such as California, and all of California's electoral voters could cast their vote for McCain. This would never happen, but under the current system, it is possible. Voters who do this are called "faithless voters". This happened in the 2000 election: a voter (I think from Washington DC) that was supposed to vote for Gore actually didn't vote at all.

In the 1836 election, all of Virginia's 23 electors voted for their designated presidential candidate, Van Buren, but refused to vote for his running mate, Richard Mentor Johnson. As a result, the Vice President had to be chosen by the U.S. Senate (A provision in the 12th amendment.) This is an example of how a select group of people attempted to alter an election because of their own views, but the Senate chose to elect Johnson anyway.

In my opinion, the current process of electing the President is undemocratic. In the 2004 election, about 121 million people voted. There are 538 electors in the Electoral College. This means that 1 electoral vote represented 225,035 votes. By abstaining from voting, the one faithless elector in the 2004 election negated 225,035 votes. I would argue that that is not democracy.

For anyone who doesn't think any of this is right, take a look at your ballots the next time you vote for President. I'm looking at my absentee ballot right now, and it says I am voting for "Electors of President and Vice President of the United States". Also, for anyone thinking that the party in power can somehow fix an election, that is simply not the case. Yes, theoretically the 538 electors could change the results of an election, but this has never happened and likely never will. But the fact that it is even a possibility indicates the need for a reform of the system.

[itaewonguy]

[prideofidaho]

^
specifically about the part where you mention vote-rigging....

I just watched recount, and all I'll say is that I think it's a pretty well made film about the 2000 Florida recount. From what I understand, there was a lot of bureaucratic red tape...

I took an American Politics course in uni, and it floored me at how complicated and complex the system is. I don't pretend to understand it completely.

[nate2008]

[Jandar]

What exactly would you change?

[canuckistan]

Buying too many Diebold voting terminals.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/23/diebold-comes-clean-admits-that-its-e-voting-machines-are-fault/

Until 2005 the CEO of Diebold was a major contributor/fundraiser for the Republican party.

http://charleypatton.blogspot.com/2006/10/voting-machine-controversy-diebold-ceo.html

[Ya-ta Boy]

[some waygug-in]

Hmmm

http://vodpod.com/watch/1100275-hacking-the-vote?pod=buzzflash

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXfShmwMrM

[Milwaukiedave]

There are ways to supress individual voters and that is going to be a problem. Maybe more so in some states then others.

[bacasper]