Slashdot Mirror


Barack Obama Is One Step Closer To Being President

At 3:00 Eastern time on Monday Dec. 15, 538 electors in state capitols across the US cast the votes that actually elected Barack Obama the 44th President. Obama received, unofficially, 365 electoral votes (with 270 needed to win). The exact total will not be official — or Obama officially elected — until Congress certifies the count of electoral votes in a joint session on Jan. 6, 2009. The Electoral College was established in its present form in 1804 by the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution. Electors are not required to vote for the candidate who won their state — in fact, 24 states make it a criminal offense to vote otherwise, but no "faithless elector" has ever been charged with a crime. "On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. ... To date, faithless electors have never changed the otherwise expected outcome of the election."

7 of 601 comments (clear)

  1. Roger MacBride/Tonie Nathan by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lots was made about Sarah Palin being on the Republican ticket. In 1972, Roger MacBride--a faithless Republican elector from Virginia--decided that he could not in good conscience vote for Nixon. He cast his vote for John Hospers & Tonie Nathan on the Libertarian ticket, marking the first time a woman had ever received an electoral vote.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  2. Re:for all the founding fathers did right by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, that's probably the best way to do it, is have the electoral college be proportional to within its own state. I've never been a fan of the straight popular vote for President - it really takes away from the rural states and some of their voice in government, and places without major population center needs to have its voice heard. Yeah, it may mean their vote "counts more," but direct democracy, particularly when dealing with such a large population who is getting more and more uneducated about politics, and who is apt to fall for some of the semi-demogoguery from both sides (Obama's campaign to the masses was woefully short on substance, and about all anyone on the street was able to say was "change.")

    Frankly, what I would like to see, and what has even LESS chance to get set in than getting rid of the electoral college, is a test that must be taken when one votes that has basic principles of civics.

  3. Re:Why on Slashdot? by Jack9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do we see posts on who is the new PM of Iraq, the new Pope is, or howabout what Obama had for breakfast?

    That's a negative little ducky.

    Unless there is an upset or irrational event on such an "important" event, the mechanics of the US political infrastructure do not matter.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  4. Re:for all the founding fathers did right by theaveng · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >>>a little doubt in the power of democracy. a fuck up

    (1) That's because they recalled that a previous Democracy in Athens had killed one of mankind's greatest thinkers, Socrates, simply because they didn't like him. They did not want the right to life to be taken-away by a simple 50% +1 vote.

    (2) It's no more fucked-up then how the European Union operates - ya know, a Union of States where States elect ministers to the Council, not the people. You need to understand history, because in 1786 we were not a single nation - we were 13 indepentent nations coming together as an EU-type organization. Hence an election organized by States, not people.

    (3) Hence we a Republic of 50 States, where LAW reigns and protects the individual, not a democracy where the majority squashes the individual underfoot.

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  5. Re:for all the founding fathers did right by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Interesting

    By what definition should Al Gore have "rightfully" been President after the 2000 election? If the U.S. Supreme Court had not stepped in, the Florida legislature would have appointed electors to represent Florida that would have voted for George W. Bush. If those electors were not seated, the election would have gone to Congress to be decided. Congress would have chosen George W. Bush.
    As for the "popular vote", California alone chose not to count more absentee ballots than the difference in the reported national vote totals between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The reason that California (and many other states) did not count all of the absentee ballots was because for California, the remaining absentee ballots were fewer than the difference in the vote total for California.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  6. Re:And this is news because? by TroyM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember during the 2000 election fiasco, I was watching some news call in show. A woman said that Gore had an unfair advantage, because he was a career politician and probably knew about this electoral college stuff, while she was sure Bush didn't. She apparently had never heard of it.

    It doesn't hurt to remind people of the bizarre way that the US Presidential election works.

  7. How can you register with FEC w/o proof? by JSBiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing about this whole Obama citizenship debate that bothers me - how the *hell* do we even wind up in a situation where, *after* the election, someone is questioning eligibility? In order to run for President, you have to register your candidacy with the Federal Election Commission, or something, don' you? Why aren't candidates required to prove eligibility as a requirement to even *be in the election*?

    We should not have a system where it's even remotely possible that someone could be elected when they aren't eligible.

    That said, there really is no question that Obama is a natural citizen. After all, we know who his mother and grandmother are, and we know they are natural born citizens. By definition, if either of your parents are US citizens, you are a natural born citizen. Unless you don't think the woman he claims as his mother really is his mother.