Does the Electoral College stifle third parties?

The Electoral College system WORKS and is supported by the US Constitution. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200...

Under the Electoral College system, it is possible for a candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president by winning only in eleven key states.

Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political Preserving Federalism

The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism -- the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.

Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/World/Electoral-Colleg...

Over 700 amendments have been proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College. All have failed.

Your State Senators and Congressmen/women will vote on behalf of your state. After the polls close, the Senators and Congressmen cast their votes for the candidate that their state chose.

A total of 270 votes are needed to be elected President of the total 538 possible votes.

In 2000 there were only 2 states that did not operate under the "winner take all" method. They were Nebraska and Maine. The other 48 states and D.C. are winner take all electoral votes.

Here's a map with the electoral points for each state in 2004:

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/nameri...

VOTE TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE!

in basic terms Maine and Nebraska cut up up their electoral college electors between applicants. this suggests that a candidate, for many section, the two wins all or none of each state's electoral college votes. a third celebration could do nicely national - i.e. if the election grow to be one nicely-known vote, yet nonetheless no longer win any states in the electoral college. case in point, in 1992, Ross Perot have been given around 19 million votes, 19% of the favored vote, yet won no states in the electoral college. The lengthy odds of prevailing in the electoral college costs third celebration applicants legitimacy and media interest too. Our first-previous-the-submit congressional election gadget additionally hurts third/minor events. in many different international places, congressional seats are divided by way of national vote - so as that a minor celebration could win some seats whether they could no longer win in a single particular district.

Yes with a couple of caveats. In order to win electoral votes a candidate must win an outright majority of votes in a state. This makes it virtually impossible for third parties to win electoral votes--for example Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote in 1992 but didn't get any electoral votes.

Significant third party movements also tend to suck votes away from the major party which the third party is closest too politically, hurting that party--for example Nader sucked votes away from Gore in 2000, and cost Gore Florida, and the election. Most Nader supporters realized this and defected back to te Democratic Party--in other words the system creates incentives for voters to vote for a major party.

Most of the time.

The one caveat is that a strong regional party that can win electoral votes may be able to deprive each of the two major parties a majority in the electoral college, and would then be in a position to negotiate with both major parties for the presidency. Southern Democrats tried to do this a number of times in the second half of the 20th century (fortunately without success.)

But in order to pull this off a party must be able to win an outright election in a state. The Greens or the Libertarians probably won't be able to pull this off.

Ultimately the biggest hamper to third parties in the US is the way the Congress is set up, whereby candidates much win an outright plurality in some state/congressional district, which is extremely hard for most third parties.

It's supposedly meant to give more sway to less populated states (AKA rural America), but the effect is to create a fake Democracy. If your state is already blue or red by several thousand votes, your vote is essentially meaningless. And of course any vote for a third party candidate becomes meaningless as well.

I've made up my mind though that we should continue voting just as we would if the electoral college did not exist. Somehow the 2000 Presidential election was not enough to bring about change, but if enough votes are rendered meaningless then the flaws of the system will be magnified. Maybe then someone will actually notice how broken the Electoral College is. Then we just have to force all states to hold their primaries on the same day so that the residents of Iowa and New Hampshire don't get to decide for us who the next Presidential candidates will be.

No. The 2 main parties stifle third parties. Especially if it looks like the candidate will take votes from their guy.

Use your pen and write in your selection, and see if this effects the electoral college! Every one should use the write in option!

Yes, and I don't know. I think the Electoral College is amazingly pointless, but perhaps a polysci student could explain its purpose and make me understand.

HDNet Dec 1 DNC debate (Sat 7:30pm ET).

- all eight -

gravel kucinich paul nader