NEWS: The Green Clown Party

That discusses the electors of California not that actual candidate, so whoever said that candidates must "sign up" are either A) full of shit or B) still not proven to be correct. Besides, it's a moot point. The comment was made in response to FTR's perceived flip-flopping which has proven to be a baseless claim.

Damn abbazappa, you're the man!

you must hate everybody right?

Because there was not quotation associated with your comment, I must ask, are you speaking to me?

Aaaand... I fail, because when I first read this I thought this was addressing the point that I thought was being made, but wasn't but....OMG....I need sleep now....shit....

Or were you speaking to me? lol, I think?

EDIT:
N/M

Use some critical thinking. A write in candidate has to pick his/her Electoral College voters and register them for the off chance he/she wins the state. With out doing that then the person would get zero electoral votes. So they wouldn't even bother counting write in votes unless some one registered their Electoral College voters. When you vote for the presidential candidate you are not voting for the candidate. I only provided that, since some one brought up write in candidate for an option. Then I said they have to register (and they do, they register their Electoral College voters), the link I first provided was lacking so I got the official rules. So tell me where I am wrong?

This type of bullshit is not needed.

Is this true? My understanding is that there are Electoral College Electors who are elected/assigned by the state. Based on the results of the direct vote they get to make their decision as to who they will support (they don't have to support who was popularly supported if that's their decision). I've never heard that each candidate chooses their electors. Is this a CA thing? A US thing? If so, I'm going to feel extremely stupid, but as always I'm fully willing to admit when I'm wrong.

See Above.

Really?

And like I said, it's really a moot point in the context of why it was brought up/this thread. Nevertheless, I don't blame you for that--obviously. You were just responding to a claim that your source was not authoritative.

I'm still interested to learn where our misunderstanding is coming from. Is my understanding of ECE incorrect? Is is just incorrect in regards to California? Or what? These things are kinda important.

Not sure that i see the logic in a serial obamabot pimp bashing the green party.

Mckinney is not the best choice but she has at least raised a voice and complained about improper relationships between defense contractors and elected officials. That a lot more than most democrats and a lot more than obama has done.

But ultimately in the world of democrats, who overwhelmingly approved the patriot act, war with iraq, seem ready to approve war with iran and continue to fund iraq, I'm not sure its the green party that needs to be attacked.

The author might want to fix the focus on those blurry eyes and actually tackle some real issues without parroting the barack campaign or the mainstream media.

Does anyone pay attention?

nm

And "Damn abbazappa, you're the man!" is needed?

Is this true? My understanding is that there are Electoral College Electors who are elected/assigned by the state. Based on the results of the direct vote they get to make their decision as to who they will support (they don't have to support who was popularly supported if that's their decision). I've never heard that each candidate chooses their electors. Is this a CA thing? A US thing? If so, I'm going to feel extremely stupid, but as always I'm fully willing to admit when I'm wrong.

Actually it is the state party that decides. Republicans have their list and Democrats have theirs. Write in candidates get to make their own since they are not a party which is why they have to fill out the paper work.

See Above.
Yup, if a person gets written in and never filled out the paper work for their electoral voters they wont get counted due to the fact there is so many people with the same first and last name.

Really?
Nope, you are voting for the Electoral voters not the Candidate. It is then that Candidates electoral voters that will vote for that candidate if they win the election. Those voters are not required to vote for that candidate though but it is rare for an Electoral College voter to switch since they are die hard party loyalists but some due talk about it for media attention. That is also why there is no National Election it is all State elections that happen on the same day.

And like I said, it's really a moot point in the context of why it was brought up/this thread. Nevertheless, I don't blame you for that--obviously. You were just responding to a claim that your source was not authoritative.
No problem, my first source wasn't the best and Shiny_Metal_Ass wanted it sourced since he never heard of that.

Electoral College confuses most people since it is a bit tricky but is a needed system. If we just elected on popular vote it would be majority tyranny and candidates would only go to urban and metro areas.

Sorry, I'm going to have to just respond according to reactions seeing as to the quotations are already fucked up.

1) Thanks for the clarification. I "knew" that that parties choose their electors, but what is confusing is the controversy over the electoral college (given that this is actually the case). If the electors are chosen by the party, then why would any of them ever elect someone from the opposite party? Isn't that a big criticism of the EC system? That the electors could actually elect someone not chosen by the party? Anyway, my memory agrees with your assertion, however, there seems to be a disconnect here and I'm hoping someone can clarify it. It also explains my confusing in response to your citation.

2) The "Damn abbazappa" comment was more of a playful digg at Rude Ruca than you. I realize that may not be apparent and I apologize. I'm sorry, but it wasn't meant to be malicious and really wasn't directed at you.

3) The response to your comment "when you vote...you're not really voting" was sarcasm. Just so we're clear. I'm not that ignorant.

Anyway, thanks for the polite response.

my main thought was sent to fear the reaper i unstand this is political parody but guy hates everybody. he does not like conservatives, republicans, librals,or democrates he hates everybody.

Hah. I was being a dick and I messed up. That's what I get.

As a previous poster said, FTR was definitely on the obamabot cruise. He may have relinquished his duties as the Julie McCoy of that love boat but he is definitely still on the boat.

The obama campaign has launched a smear campaign against McKinney and FTR is parroting it, definitely still has a case of obama-lama fever.

The obama campaign proclaimed they don't need florida or ohio to win the GE (true) and part of that strategy is the assumption that obama will pick up Georgia.

McKinney, an African American woman from Georgia is a threat to that. Thus, Obama operatives are pumping out old right wing crap about her, just like they did to clinton.

And just as FTR regurgitated the Obama's attacks Clinton so too is he repeatedly the attacks on McKinney.

I try to . . . OOH! A shiny penny!

F.T.R. for pres. 08'!

... oh shit, fetch your sawn off zombie slayer, this is going to get ugly!

It's theoretically possible for the electors to elect someone not chosen by the party. However, in practice, faithless electors are exceedingly rare; as stated, electors are chosen by the party, and they're typically the members of the party with reputations for being very loyal, so they don't generally cast votes for the opposite party.

A faithless elector last occurred in Minnesota, I'm ashamed to say. In 2004; it was most likely an accident, as it was a presidential ballot for "John Ewards." We've now passed legislation that allows us to invalidate a vote for anyone other than whoever was supposed to get it.

It's even rarer for an entire group of electors to cast a ballot other than the one they pledged.

Essentially, faithless electors affecting the outcome of an election is extremely unlikely.