Al Gore on the rise?

[finehoe]

Times of great change can bring great dangers.  The people are starting to wake up, slowly but surely, almost one person at a time.  They are getting angry, and motivated, as the overreach and pride of the financial interests continues to grow.  They are not buying the globalists' message of rule by multinational corporations and a remote elite.  And with this brings both opportunity, and danger.

[Tacachale]

American government has been a two-party system almost since the beginning. All that's changed has been the parties themselves, which have either evolved with the times (Democrats and Republicans, so far) or collapsed (goodbye, Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, and Whigs). Historically, there have been one of two rolls for third parties: either serving to replace a collapsing existing party, or being forever delegated to a minority status. Of course as minority parties they've still been able to influence even national elections, generally at the expense of whatever major party is the most similar to them. Neither Ross Perot in 1992 or Ralph Nader in 2000 got any electoral votes, but they got enough popular votes to disrupt the final outcome.

I don't see either Sanders or Trump as being as successful as even Ralph Nader, let alone Ross Perot. I see them more like Ron Paul in 2004 and 2008: able to generate a lot of noise and draw a vocal core followers, but unable to get large enough support to influence the primaries, let alone the actual election. Sanders get past Clinton. And Trump's seeming advantage will shrink once some of the other candidates start getting out of the clown car and the mainstream support gels.

Of the two Trump may well throw in as third party, but I doubt he'll be as successful as Perot was. The deck is too stacked against third party candidates now, and an even larger percentage of the electorate view him negatively.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Neither Ross Perot in 1992 or Ralph Nader in 2000 got any electoral votes, but they got enough popular votes to disrupt the final outcome.

It might just be my own personal misunderstanding, but how does the popular vote affect the final outcome? 

It's my understanding and belief that the popular vote in the national presidential election is absolutely irrelevant.  If I'm wrong, then I've been wrong for over a decade, but if you have something to shed some light otherwise, I'm willing to listen.

Edit:

Just for clarification, my suspicion for all that is national politics began after I researched not only the EC, but it was also around that time when I realized the Federal Reserve was neither a government entity nor a public one.  My tin-foil hat went on right around the time the towers collapsed.  While I'm far from a full-blood conspiracy theorist, sometimes there's just too many breadcrumbs to ignore.

[Adam White]

It might just be my own personal misunderstanding, but how does the popular vote affect the final outcome? 

It's my understanding and belief that the popular vote in the national presidential election is absolutely irrelevant.  If I'm wrong, then I've been wrong for over a decade, but if you have something to shed some light otherwise, I'm willing to listen.

Popular vote matters because that's how electors are apportioned. So if Sanders were to win the Democratic Party nomination and went on to win the popular vote, he'd most likely end up as President. I say "most likely" because there are scenarios (I believe) whereby a person could win the popular vote nationally, but still not win the most electors, depending on what States he wins.

There are all sorts of issues with a winner-takes-all system of voting. And the electoral college seems an anachronism at best. But in spite of the occasional rogue elector, I've not seen any evidence to suggest that whomever wins the most electors won't become President.

[Tacachale]

Neither Ross Perot in 1992 or Ralph Nader in 2000 got any electoral votes, but they got enough popular votes to disrupt the final outcome.

It might just be my own personal misunderstanding, but how does the popular vote affect the final outcome? 

It's my understanding and belief that the popular vote in the national presidential election is absolutely irrelevant.  If I'm wrong, then I've been wrong for over a decade, but if you have something to shed some light otherwise, I'm willing to listen.

It's complicated, but yes, the popular vote affects the electoral vote and therefore the election. It just happens state by state. Electors are chosen by the states, and today in every state, this is done through the popular vote in the presidential election. In other words, the popular vote in a particular state determines the candidate that gets the state's electoral votes. In 48 states, whoever wins the popular vote gets all the electoral votes. In Maine and Nebraska, the electoral votes can be split between candidates, again based on popular voting. There are a few cases where the electors voted against their "pledge"; it's called being a "faithless elector" and it's rare. I don't think it's ever affected the outcome of an election.

A state gets the same number of electors as it has members of Congress. In general, this makes smaller states' popular votes count more, by design. Additionally, because most states send all their electoral votes to whatever candidate won the popular vote, swing states have a lot of influence in determining the election.

[finehoe]

...there are scenarios (I believe) whereby a person could win the popular vote nationally, but still not win the most electors...

This is exactly what happened in the election of 2000.  Gore won the popular vote, but Bush got more electoral votes (thanks to the Supremes' decision in Bush v. Gore giving FL to W).

[Tacachale]

It might just be my own personal misunderstanding, but how does the popular vote affect the final outcome? 

It's my understanding and belief that the popular vote in the national presidential election is absolutely irrelevant.  If I'm wrong, then I've been wrong for over a decade, but if you have something to shed some light otherwise, I'm willing to listen.

Popular vote matters because that's how electors are apportioned. So if Sanders were to win the Democratic Party nomination and went on to win the popular vote, he'd most likely end up as President. I say "most likely" because there are scenarios (I believe) whereby a person could win the popular vote nationally, but still not win the most electors, depending on what States he wins.

There are all sorts of issues with a winner-takes-all system of voting. And the electoral college seems an anachronism at best. But in spite of the occasional rogue elector, I've not seen any evidence to suggest that whomever wins the most electors won't become President.

As we saw in 2000, it's possible for a candidate to win the (overall) popular vote and still lose the election, based on the states they win. This happened three other times: 1824, 1876, and 1888. It isn't possible to win without winning the most electoral votes; that's what determines the president. There have been a few "faithless electors", but it usually happens as a protest (in 2000, one of the DC electors voted for no one as a protest of the district's lack of congressional representation) or by mistake (sometimes they put the wrong name). I don't think there's been a genuine faithless elector, who voted against the way the people voted, since the 1970s. And either way, I'm not aware of any case where it had an effect on the election.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I'm aware of all of this, but as you stated, there is no 'requirement' for the electors to vote with the majority.  Faithless voter as it's called.

Finehoe is also correct. 

The system is set up to maintain itself.  I don't believe it was always so, but it's a broken system in today's world.

[Tacachale]

I'm aware of all of this, but as you stated, there is no 'requirement' for the electors to vote with the majority.  Faithless voter as it's called.

Finehoe is also correct. 

The system is set up to maintain itself.  I don't believe it was always so, but it's a broken system in today's world.

It's not "required" I guess, but it's very rarely happened that a state's electors didn't vote the way of the popular vote. This is the extent of the times it has happened:

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

[Adam White]

I am aware of all of that, thanks.

[BridgeTroll]

In general, this makes smaller states' popular votes count more, by design. Additionally, because most states send all their electoral votes to whatever candidate won the popular vote, swing states have a lot of influence in determining the election.

Soooo... it is working exactly as designed.   

[The_Choose_1]

I have heard this thrown around from time to time? If Hilliary is in trouble with her emails and since Mr sanders has a snowball chance in hell of winning. Maybe President Barack Obama should stay on for a third term? Problem solved lets move on to another easy fix. 

[coredumped]

Yeah, Obama for a third term would be great... That's sarcasm.
I think if Biden ran he'd win the nomination, and the presidency if he was up against Bush.

[peestandingup]

Yeah, Obama for a third term would be great... That's sarcasm.
I think if Biden ran he'd win the nomination, and the presidency if he was up against Bush.

Hilary is pretty much tanked at this point, and Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell (he's the Ron Paul of the Dems, who by the way also had a huge following, giant gatherings, etc & he went nowhere in the real world). Everyone else they have are pretty weak to be honest & no one is talking about them, which is quite the opposite of the Reps this time around. Like it or not, people are talking about them & they have a few very strong candidates who don't sound like extremist morons (hey, its a nice change).

I'm a moderate so I don't care either way honestly, but I see it going to them. The country usually swings back & forth every decade or so anyway, so its going back to the right IMO.

[finehoe]

...they have a few very strong candidates who don't sound like extremist morons

And who might they be?