|
| 16 Sep 2012 03:24 PM |
| Say it's a two man race and only the states with the highest amount of electors per capita are won, could an election be won with less then 40% of the vote? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
thepit44
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21143 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 03:31 PM |
You can win with 12 states.
~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 03:37 PM |
Would that be less then 40% of the population thogh?
I doubt because More populous states have fewer people per elector. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
thepit44
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21143 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 03:47 PM |
Nevermind, you oly need 11.
Those eleven states make up 56.6% of the country.
~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 03:54 PM |
So it would not matter, because that would still be the popular vote.
I mean if only the states with the fewest people Per Elector were all won, if that could be less then 40% of the vote. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
thepit44
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21143 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 03:57 PM |
Yes, however, you only need 50.1% of each of those states to win, so you can win with 28.4% of the popular vote.
~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 04:15 PM |
Or you could win a bunch of the smaller states who have fewer people per elector.
It's probably possible to win with less then 25% of the vote in the American Elector System in a two man race, our opponent could literally have 75% of the vote and lose.
That's messed up, |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 04:28 PM |
Sure you could. The absolute minimum number of votes you need out of 234,564,000 available votes is 54,033,040, or 23% of the voting age population.
I did all of these calculations by myself. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 04:30 PM |
| By the way, this is assuming you win the 40-lowest population states by 1 vote, and lose the top 10 biggest states unanimously. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 04:34 PM |
| In a 2 person race, that is. In a multiperson race it's possible to win with .0000001% of the vote, or 40 people. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
thepit44
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21143 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 04:40 PM |
@Avo
You would need many, many people to run then.
~ALADEEN MODAR CHODAR! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Avogadro
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 4011 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 04:41 PM |
| Yes, yes you would. But wait, if we assume that every single person turns out, then you would need 80 votes to win. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
jbg23
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Feb 2011 |
| Total Posts: 2163 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 05:33 PM |
On a related note, under Article V an amendment supported by over 90% of population could still be blocked, and a minority of the population could amend the constitution.
<3 CONSTITUTION <3333333 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 07:36 PM |
| Stupid state electoral system....... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
jbg23
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Feb 2011 |
| Total Posts: 2163 |
|
|
| 16 Sep 2012 07:45 PM |
| Yes. Sorry, founding fathers, but we are no longer a mobocracy. QQ MOAR. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Sep 2012 07:11 AM |
Thomas jeffeson states the consitution belongs the the living generation.
There is nothing wrong with changing it, not to mention adam smith supported free markets because it believed it created equality |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
| |
|
droid329
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2227 |
|
|
| 17 Sep 2012 11:38 AM |
In a two person race it is possible to with with just under 22% of the vote
I'm Not Breaking Down, I'm Breaking Out. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 17 Sep 2012 02:33 PM |
| you can focus on electorals instead of popular votes. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
jbg23
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Feb 2011 |
| Total Posts: 2163 |
|
|
| 17 Sep 2012 04:35 PM |
There is nothing wrong with changing it, not to mention adam smith supported free markets because it believed it created equality
____
For the record, Keynes was also a conservative. However the government always wants to apply Keynesian policies even when it doesn't make sense and Smithian systems are entirely misunderstood (HURR DURR LOWER TAXES PLS, HURR DURR RICH HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY) so we get the worst of both worlds. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Boeing717
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 08 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 70007 |
|
|
| 17 Sep 2012 04:35 PM |
"In a multiperson race it's possible to win with .0000001% of the vote, or 40 people."
how |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
jbg23
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Feb 2011 |
| Total Posts: 2163 |
|
|
| 17 Sep 2012 04:38 PM |
boeing:
if all the other people die and there are no more goats |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|