I'm talking about country leaders. People, at least here in Canada, complain/make fun of the US because Bush didn't technically win the election.

However, here in Canada. I woke up one morning and Paul Martin was leading our country. I don't remember ever voting for him, or being asked to vote for him. But somehow, he became our Prime Minister.

I can't believe out country is being run by somebody that nobody voted for/against. Canada has problems.

Yes, I kind of missed that whole election for some reason...

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44692 date=1076989492]
I'm talking about country leaders. People, at least here in Canada, complain/make fun of the US because Bush didn't technically win the election.

However, here in Canada. I woke up one morning and Paul Martin was leading our country. I don't remember ever voting for him, or being asked to vote for him. But somehow, he became our Prime Minister.

I can't believe out country is being run by somebody that nobody voted for/against. Canada has problems.
[/quote]

What is your process?

We vote in the *party* for the election, and whoever happens to be running the party gets to run the country. Jean Chretien retired during his term, and Paul Martin took over the party, so all of a sudden he's on charge.

Same here. Parties with morons for leaders don't tend to get elected though. *cough*

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44750 date=1077040506]
Same here. Parties with morons for leaders don't tend to get elected though. *cough*
[/quote]

But our party's leader changed during the party's term. That's the most unfair thing I've ever seen.

If our President dies, the Vice President does take over for the remainder of the term. However, we at least get to know who the Vice President would be during the elections.

And if the Vice President dies too? And can't the president appoint a new VP?

If the vice president dies I belive it moves on to the secretary of state, and then through an entire list of people if enough of them die.

[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44786 date=1077054440]
If the vice president dies I belive it moves on to the secretary of state, and then through an entire list of people if enough of them die.
[/quote]

But you know the list before the election?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44787 date=1077054541]
[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44786 date=1077054440]
If the vice president dies I belive it moves on to the secretary of state, and then through an entire list of people if enough of them die.
[/quote]

But you know the list before the election?
[/quote]

Yes, its the 25th amendment:

The President
1 The Vice President
2 Speaker of the House
3 President pro tempore of the Senate (Presides over Senate in VPs absence)
4 Secretary of State
5 Secretary of the Treasury
6 Secretary of Defense
7 Attorney General
8 Secretary of the Interior
9 Secretary of Agriculture
10 Secretary of Commerce
11 Secretary of Labor
12 Secretary of Health and Human Services
13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
14 Secretary of Transportation
15 Secretary of Energy
16 Secretary of Education
17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs
18 Secretary of Homeland Security*

*pending legislation to move this office to number 8 slot.

Yes you know the positions before the election, but no, you don't know who is occupying them. Many of them are Presidentially-appointed cabinet positions filled when he takes office.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44692 date=1076989492]
I'm talking about country leaders. People, at least here in Canada, complain/make fun of the US because Bush didn't technically win the election.[/quote]

That's a big problem, because Bush did technically win the election.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is this: by the rules of our process, Bush won the election. Some dozens of recounts, even by the media, support that Bush won the count in Florida, and by our electoral college process (stupid, I know), Bush won the election.

Bush isn't the first to win the election, either; IIRC, Bush is the seventh "minority" President.

But close popular votes can make for very distant electoral votes. For example:
1864
Abraham Lincoln, Republican - 212 electoral, 2,219,362 popular
George B. McClellan, Democrat - 21 electoral, 1,805,063 popular

1872
Ulysses S. Grant, Republican - 286 electoral, 3,597,375 popular
Horace Greeley, Democrat - 0 electoral, 2,833,711 popular

Here are some of the minority Presidents:
1824
John Q. Adams, Dem.-Rep. 84 e, 115,696 p (Chosen by the House when no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes)
Andrew Jackson, Dem.-Rep. 99 e, 152,933 p
W. H. Crawford, Dem.-Rep. 41 e, 46,979 p
Henry Clay, Dem.-Rep. 37 e, 47,136 p

1876
Rutherford B. Hayes, Rep. 185 e, 4,035,924 p
Samuel J. Tilden, Dem. 184 e, 4,287,670 p

1888
Benjamin Harrison, Rep. 233 e, 5,445,269 p
Grover Cleveland, Dem. 168 e, 5,540,365 p
Clinton Fisk, Prohibition 0 e, 250,122 p

2000
George W. Bush, Rep. 271 e, 50,456,169 p
Al Gore, Dem. 266 e, 50,996,116 p
Ralph Nader, Green 0 e, 2,695,696 p

Taken from http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:z5RyxHmgh3EJ:gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.html+presidential+election+results&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this site, because as I said, I thought I'd seen that Bush was the seventh, and this site only lists him as the fourth.

In any case, the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (so changed by Amendment XII) provides the rules for the elections -- that is, that votes shall be cast by Electors, not the general public.

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44850 date=1077077047]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44692 date=1076989492]
I'm talking about country leaders. People, at least here in Canada, complain/make fun of the US because Bush didn't technically win the election.[/quote]

That's a big problem, because Bush did technically win the election.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is this: by the rules of our process, Bush won the election. Some dozens of recounts, even by the media, support that Bush won the count in Florida, and by our electoral college process (stupid, I know), Bush won the election.

In any case, the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (so changed by Amendment XII) provides the rules for the elections -- that is, that votes shall be cast by Electors, not the general public.
[/quote]

Right, which is why it's not stupid. States each choose who they want, and the electors vote for that candidate which the people of the state selected by popular vote (or whatever method that state chooses).

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44853 date=1077079436]
Right, which is why it's not stupid. States each choose who they want, and the electors vote for that candidate which the people of the state selected by popular vote (or whatever method that state chooses).
[/quote]

That's one of the reasons I can see the Constitution not being changed -- right now, it's one of the States' rights under the federalist system.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44750 date=1077040506]
Same here. Parties with morons for leaders don't tend to get elected though. *cough*
[/quote]

That's why Bush was elected and not Gore. ;)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44752 date=1077040664]
But our party's leader changed during the party's term. That's the most unfair thing I've ever seen.
[/quote]

Sweden uses a similar system. The single leader isn't that important here though, doesn't have that much extra power, no vetoing etc.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44853 date=1077079436]Right, which is why it's not stupid. States each choose who they want, and the electors vote for that candidate which the people of the state selected by popular vote (or whatever method that state chooses).[/quote]

The main thing that I hear cited against this design is that most states tend to have an all-or-nothing system. That is, if a candidate has a majority of even one vote, he gets all of the electoral votes for that state. I've heard arguments both for and against switching it to be percentage driven (e.g. got 51% popular vote? You get 51% of the electoral vote.) Unfortunately, I don't recall offhand the details cited by either side.

[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=15#msg44987 date=1077162187]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=0#msg44853 date=1077079436]Right, which is why it's not stupid. States each choose who they want, and the electors vote for that candidate which the people of the state selected by popular vote (or whatever method that state chooses).[/quote]

The main thing that I hear cited against this design is that most states tend to have an all-or-nothing system. That is, if a candidate has a majority of even one vote, he gets all of the electoral votes for that state. I've heard arguments both for and against switching it to be percentage driven (e.g. got 51% popular vote? You get 51% of the electoral vote.) Unfortunately, I don't recall offhand the details cited by either side.
[/quote]

That's exactly the way that it works; in fact, IIRC, all states are that way. That's why I say that it's a "States' Rights" issue. =)

but the electorals dont have to vote for the party they are registered to vote for.
it was a system designed two centuries ago because half the people were illiterate and the people who designed the system said all things should and will change. I think its time the electoral college was done away with.

However, the electorals must tell the state appointing them whom they will vote for. That's why when the Secretary of State in Florida certified the votes, it guaranteed Bush's win -- the electoral appointees vote for whomever their state tells them to vote.

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=2;threadid=5331;start=15#msg45037 date=1077205679]the electoral appointees vote for whomever their state tells them to vote.[/quote]

hmm, when I last checked, that wasn't common throughout all the states. Most required it, but some didn't I think.

they arent required to vote for that person last I was taught but that was a few years ago. You sure the secretary of state didnt just verify who they voted for. kinda like when the jury has to stand up and say whether they voted guilty or not guilty. I forget what its called.

edit: I'll probably just shut up after this because I'm not really into politics to much and I'm prolly way off.