|
|
本帖最後由 寒冬開梅 於 2011-12-7 07:23 編輯
司徒恭平 發表於 2011-12-7 05:15 
是嗎，選票是布希家族印發的嗎？去研究一下佛州選舉法。
The mysterious workings of the electoral college I
every four years, there's a great rumbling across a merica. The question has been asked again and again--an d sometimes we figure it all out, only to forget by the time the next election cycle rools around: what is the electoral college?
First of all, it's not really a college.
During presidential election years, each candidate chooses a group of electors(usually party loyalists)who 've pledged their votes to that candidate. This may com e as a surprise, but on November 7, when we all head of f to the polls, we won't vote for either bush or Gore. We'll vote for an entire slate of electors chosen by ou r favored candidate. So, for example, if bush's slate w ins the plurality of the vote in texas, his group of el ectors will represent that state. And in december, the winning slates gather for state meetings, where the vot es for president are officially cast. Interestingly, el ectors are under no legal obligation to vote for their assigned candidate.
How did it come about?
The electoral process was devised that appointing e lectors to represent each state was more democratic tha n allowing congress to elect the president and easier t han counting every popular vote.
Does every state get the same number of electors?
No.sorry, south dakota. Each state has as many elec tors as it has U.S.senators(always two) and U.S represe ntatives(which depends on census population counts).
Can two candidates split one state's electoral vote s?
Nope. Except in maine and nebraska, the electoral v otes operate on a winner-take-all system. That's why th e candidates spend so much time and money campaigning i n electoral gold mines like california, texas and new y ork--and relatively little time in montana.
The mysterious workings of the electoral college II
Doesn't thim system mean a candidate could win the popular vote and still not become president?
It sure does. In fact, that's happened at least twi ce in american history. In 1876 and 1888 rutherford B.H ayes and benjamin harrison, respectively, became presid ent without winning the popular vote. Critics of the el ectoral college maintain this secnaio could easily take place again.
What happens if no one wins the majority of the ele ctoral votes?
We head to capitol Hill, where the U.S. House would choose the president( each state casting one vote) and the senate would pick a vice president (each senator vo tes).
So why don't we just cast our own darn votes?
That a good question. Defenders of the current syst em argue that an individual vote would favor voter-rich urban centers and leach power from rural areas. Besides , many maintain, we've always done it this way, and nob ody wants to change the constitution if we don't absolu tely have to.
Critics, on the other hand, argue the electoral col lege is at best an outdated relic, and at worst a loomi ng political disaster. If more than a simple plurality of voters in texas vote for bush, every vote over the p lurality is a "wasted vote.", in political science term s. Why souldn't those votes count for bush in the gener al election?
Will the electoral college exist 20 years from now?
Probably. Outside of academia and certain political circles, there's no sense of urgency to change the syst em. A major upheaval like abolishing the electoral coll ege vould likely take decades to gain widespread accetp ance. That's unlikely to happen any time soon-especiall y considering that many americans don't know how the sy stem works in the first place. Until now, that is …
By fessica reaves
|
|
狗仔卡
樓主
