Question

Need some help have some gist but need help

Answer 1

Do the events surrounding the Election of 2000 justify changes to the Electoral College? Explain why you think it does or why you think it does not in a well-written paragraph with at least three reasons.

Answer 2

The Events that happened during the Election of 2000 do not justify changes to the Electoral College. I say this because The Electoral College picks the candidates for the election while the Citizens vote for who is president. Becoming president doesn't mean you win from popular votes though it is part of the process.

Answer 3

^what i have so far but i need help still e.e

Answer 4

@Shadow

Answer 5

@pixel

Answer 6

@dude

Answer 7

@JustSaiyan

Answer 8

Do you know what the Electoral College is?

Answer 9

its a group of people who are chosen to select a candidate for a particular office such as president

Answer 10

kind of like the electorial votes from the collages

Answer 11

Okay so the Electoral College is the process by which we elect our president. There are a total of 538 electors in the Electoral College which translates to 538 total votes. We get this number from the # of Congressman in the House and the # of Senators in the Senate. Since the House represents the population of a state(435 total) and the Senate has two from each state (100 total), bigger states have more votes. My state, Hawaii, has four (two Congressmen and two Senators). California has 55 (53 Congressmen, Two Senators), and so on. 435 from the House and 100 from the Senate gives us 535. We get the last three from the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.).

Now who are the electors? They are typically nominated by party in control, which would present America as being a Democratic Republic, since the state had elected that party into power. This is why a Democrat state ends up with electors that vote for the Democrat president. This is the part I know least about, you can read up more on the first part of this process here: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#selection

Now after they are chosen, they don't actually vote until the December after the election. This may utterly confuse you if you have ever watched an election night, which is on November 6th. Why are these people cheering (or rioting) if the people who actually decide this don't vote till December? That's because electors 'supposed to' vote how their state votes. So if 53% of the state's electorate (people who vote) voted for Trump and 47% of the state's electorate voted for Clinton, ALL electors in the Electoral College would vote for Trump. If they go against their state, they are called rogue voters. They are rare, and usually get in trouble/replaced. Some states have laws pertaining to this.

Answer 12

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/modern-us/1990s-america/a/the-election-of-2000

This article seems to summarize the election between Al Gore (Democrat) and Bush (Republican). It was the first election to be decided by the Supreme Court because the vote was so close, and as I said, if it's 51% for one candidate and 49% for the other, ALL electors vote for the guy with the 51%. Florida is also a notorious swing state, voting Democrat one election and Republican the other. There was also some controversy, since Al Gore won the popular vote (as did Clinton) and Bush won the Electoral College (as did Trump). Also, Jeb Bush was the governor of Florida at the time (conspiracy theory of if he messed with the results?) and the Supreme Court voted on party lines except one, Justice David Souter. Basically, justices appointed by a Republican president voted for Bush (except Souter) and those appointed by a Democrat president voted for Al Gore.

Answer 13

The Events that happened during the Election of 2000 do not justify changes to the Electoral College. I say this because The Electoral College picks the candidates for the election while the Citizens vote for who is president. Becoming president doesn't mean you win from popular votes though it is part of the process. But having Electoral votes are the main important vote of all.

Answer 14

Did you read what I have posted?

Answer 15

yesh well skimmed im kinda in a hurry

Answer 16

I have class soon so I am as well, lol

Answer 17

but i just dont see how this is a reason it would be justified or not *confused*

Answer 18

That's why I wrote so much. You have to understand the issue to be able to judge and see if changes are justified or not.

Answer 19

but i dont understand thats the point this is confusing me

Answer 20

but let me see if i can figure out something

Answer 21

I believe I have given you enough info. I have to head to class now. I won't be able to help until around 3 and a half hours from now.

Answer 22

*shoots self in head* Fine bye shadow

Answer 23

even tho your info is confusing AF

Answer 24

The Events that happened during the Election of 2000 do not justify changes to the Electoral College. I say this because The Electoral College picks the candidates for the election while the Citizens vote for who is president. Becoming president doesn't mean you win from popular votes though it is part of the process. You could have over 50% of the votes and still not become president because you also need the Electoral College votes. I also say this because Bush and Trump both had fewer votes but had the Electoral votes and both won and became president. And Al Gore and Hilary Clinton had most popular votes but ended up losing. So if 53% of the state's electorate voted for Trump and 47% of the state's electorate voted for Clinton, all electors in the Electoral College would vote for Trump. If they go against their state, they are called rogue voters.

Answer 25

^what i have for the answer and what imma put cause i gtg and this is all i can think off at the moment

Answer 26

What yew think Eomma e.e