part twenty seven

[kficanon]

• ANONYMOUS COMMENTING ENABLED• IP OFF• NO SPAMMING.• NO PICS. Post the links in the subject line instead.

LINKSkficanon delicious archivechallenge responsesbeta advertisementMeme Long Challenge Promptsfic comms on livejournal
POSTING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF USERS IS A SERIOUS TOS VIOLATION. PLEASE DON'T DO IT
stuff
kficanon fic exchange
kpop ficmixseouldoutkfic collab challengeseoulfulnesskillers au

kfa exchange participantsFics are due in 3 days on Nov. 12th. If you need to drop out please email kficanon@gmail.com as soon as possible.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

how is it possible that u can win in popular votes but not electoral

is it cuz of gerrymandering?

[(Anonymous)]

not an american anon but what's the difference between electoral and popularity? why are they even doing the popularity voting

[(Anonymous)]

why not? popular vote is logically the most fair way of voting.

[(Anonymous)]

popularity vote for each state is how electoral votes are assigned

[(Anonymous)]

whoever win the popular vote wins all the electoral votes, so say its 51% to 49% the candidate that got 51% gets all the electoral votes for that state

^

[(Anonymous)]

so if obama wins the electoral, he gets elected? i'm confused since romney's winning the popularity.

Re: ^

[(Anonymous)]

+1 im confused about that too

Re: ^

[(Anonymous)]

da, but yes. we're constitutional republic, not a democracy. popularity vote isn't most important

Re: ^

[(Anonymous)]

yes. at the end its the electoral that decides.

Re: ^

[(Anonymous)]

each states get a different number of electoral votes. so even if more people vote for romney, more electoral votes might go to obama. but electoral votes means winning.

[(Anonymous)]

electoral is based on state pop. so states with small pops get less electoral votes

[(Anonymous)]

i know that, so shouldnt popular vote and electoral be the same then? since its based on population?

[(Anonymous)]

not really. bc bigger states have more votes. like california has 55 votes vs alaska's 3 for example.

[(Anonymous)]

the electoral votes aren't assigned proportionally. if 49% of a state's population votes for a republican candidate and 51% vote for a democratic one, all of the electoral votes aren't split, they all go in the democratic column. but those republican votes are still tabulated as part of the overall popular vote.

[(Anonymous)]

my dad just explained it to me. he gave me this example:

suppose the votes in california (and this is just a fake example) were %49 for romney and %51 for obama, obama gets all 55 votes even though the popular vote was pretty close, but in other (smaller) states, romney will lead by way more so like 71% for romney and %29 obama, so way more people of that state voted for romney, in this case but since their population is smaller, there will be less electoral votes going to romney. does that make sense? its because its the "winner takes all" sort of thing.

http://ambotherambo.tumblr.com/post/35178825957/explaining-how-presidential-voting-works-for

[(Anonymous)]

:D

[(Anonymous)]

didnt the exact opposite happen in 2000 and democrats were bawwing about how it wasn't fair that bush won electoral but not popular

[(Anonymous)]

R baws at D, D baws at R. basically pot kettle with bigger stakes :\

[(Anonymous)]

i don't get the point of the electoral vote at all

why not just have it be simple popularity

[(Anonymous)]

ew no dnw romney to win :(

[(Anonymous)]

i just mean in general. why come up with this complicated system?

the system doesn't even make sense because the electoral votes are based off of the whole state's population but the whole population doesn't vote. it seems much more reasonable to just have it as a simple poll

[(Anonymous)]

we're not a democracy. founding fathers didn't believe that everyone's votes held equal weight or something like that

[(Anonymous)]

well that's fucked up

[(Anonymous)]

ikr its so illogical. more people in the country want romney

[(Anonymous)]

the problem w/ the us being one of the oldest democracies is that our system is more antiquated than everyone else's. when the us was founded the separate states were obsessed with their rights and wouldn't join the union if they weren't allowed to govern themselves, and the electoral college is one of the way states rights are protected. back in the day the electoral college also made it constitutionally possible for the rich old white dudes in power to override a vote if the people voted for something stupid. that wouldn't happen now without a huge outcry but that's part of why the system was instituted.