You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #40: Sorry - I don't understand your post [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-23-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Sorry - I don't understand your post
Edited on Thu Mar-23-06 11:24 AM by Yupster
First, I don't understand the first ballot part because electors just cast one vote each for president and vice-president. It's not like a convention where they keep voting until someone gets a majority. If no one has a majority on the first ballot, then the vote goes to the House of Representatives who then choose the President from among the top three electoral vote getters. If no one has a mjority of electoral votes for vice-president, then the senate chooses from among the two top vote getters.

Second, electors cannot be restricted as to who they can vote for other than the restrictions within the Constitution itself. For instance, in 1988, one Democratic elector voted for Lloyd Bentsen for president and Michael Dukakis for vice-president. In 1976, one Republican elector voted for Ronald Reagan for president instead of Gerald Ford. The way each side has handled this is to get a pledge of honor from the delegates to vote for their party's candidates. There is no legal restriction binding them though. I think in 2000, one Democratic DC elector cast a blank ballot instead of a vote for Gore.

I don't understand the can't win part either. If Reagan and Bush were both from California in 1980. then the California electors would have voted for Reagan who would have beaten Carter by the same 489-49 electoral vote total that history showed.

The California electors would not have been able to vote for Bush for vice-president, so maybe they'd vote for Reagan's friend Senator Paul Laxalt instead from Nevada. Then the electoral vote for vice-president would have been Bush 493, Mondale 49, Laxalt 45.

Anyway, I am having trouble seeing the point you're trying to make. I don't think you understand how the process works, but maybe I'm just misreading your posts. Anyway, hope I've helped.

On edit, I just read your headline, and no electors do not vote for a ticket. There are separate ballots taken for president and for vice-president and they are tallied and counted separately. If you look at the 1976 race, Gerald Ford has 240 electoral votes for president, and Bob Dole has 241 electoral votes for vice-president. That's because that one guy voted for Reagan-Dole instead of Ford-Dole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC