If nobody voted...

Post Reply New Topic

And sometimes one makes a valid vote by a mistake... it happened here, this is a valid vote for Mr Syska from the party Wiosna:

They probably don't predict it ever happening. Like NP said out of all those millions of people there would still be some voters even if the majority decided to boycott it.

I wonder why people don't vote?

People usually don’t vote because they are apathetic for various reasons.

Or maybe because they just don’t want to stand on a long line.

They take their rights for granted.

I have the opposite question: why do they? The only situation in which my vote would count is if the number of votes for each party in my state is exactly the same. And this is almost as unlikely as the scenario described in OP.

Did i vote? Yes. But only because others did so it was the thing to do. Plus voting polls happened to be really close.

Why would you vote?????

So there won’t be a chance for the second Hitler to rule your country.

We'd all get along and nobody would leave WP.

The point is that other people would vote anyway, even if I don't. And most likely my single vote won't alter the outcome of the majority of other people's votes.

Probably nothing that would probably mean a nuclear holocaust has occurred and there is nobody alive left to vote.

I haven't heard of this before. So what was the third party that won?

Also, who were electoral college that represented them? Were they republican electors or democrat ones?

Electors are electors. They vote for whom the population of the state votes for. Doesnt matter about their own party affiliation. Or its not supposed to.

Strom Thurmond was a southern Democrat who formed his own party. It was nicknamed "the Dixiecrat Party". It died out after a couple of cycles but did have that moment in the sun. Similarly, a generation later, in 1968 segregationist governor of Alabama George Wallace ran a third party campaign for POTUS and got 14 percent of the popular vote, and won the electorial vote of five deep southern states.

As Naturalplastic stated, even if a member of the Dipsy-Doo-Doo Party won the popular vote for a particular state, that person, except for 2 or 3 states (Nebraska and Maine, I know), would automatically get all the electoral votes for that particular state.

There were instances when electors chose to vote for someone other than the person that got the popular vote of that state. In fact, even in 2016 election, one of the electors (I believe in DC but I might be wrong) voted for Colin Powel. Both Hillary and Trump had two or three electors that chose not to vote for them.

This being the case, the way election is set up is that they would pick electors from the party of the candidate that won the popular vote of that state. And then electors would "most likely" vote for that candidate because they are from that party -- although some might still choose not to, as shown above.

Which then bring up a question: why are there only two sets of electors for each of the two "main" parties, instead of having electors for each of the third parties, too?

And in the instances you described when third party won, which of the two sets of electors did the "manual job" of voting for them?

The electors are chosen by the states.

Who they vote for almost always depends upon who won the state.

Over the past 100 years or so, I don't believe 20 electors chose to not vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unpledged_elector

Yes. Somehow they vote for whomever wins the state popular vote. I dont know if they have a stable of electors for every single splinter party (the Greens, the Libertarians, the Rent is Too High Party, etc) just in case some fringe party wins that state, or whether each state just has one set of electors (whom they force at gunpoint to vote for how the populace voted regardless of the electors own passions). But somehow it gets done.

Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote in his Eighties third party POTUS bid. Better than either Strom Thurmond, or George Wallace. In fact better than any other third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt and his Bullmoose party in 1912. But Perot got zero electorial votes because he failed to win the majority of any state (though he came in second in two states). Wallace and Thurmond both got sizeable regional chunks of the electorial college vote because they both won actual majorities of several southern states.

Basically, Electors are chosen, most of the time, within the conventions of political parties.

However, except in very rare cases, a Republican Elector, say, must cast his/her vote for the Democratic (or any other party) candidate if this candidate wins the popular vote for the particular state.

I believe, obviously, that it would be much easier to have elections based on popular vote. But then....Trump wouldn't have been president