Talk:United States Electoral College: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Replaced content with 'jake yaros is,..........'
Tag: repeating characters
Line 1: Line 1:
jake yaros is,..........
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=06:30, 24 Feb 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Electoral College/archive1
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=2542619

|action2=FAR
|action2date=12:05, 9 Feb 2005
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/U.S. Electoral College
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=10211561

|action3=FAR
|action3date=15:30, 18 July 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Electoral College/archive1
|action3result=demoted
|action3oldid=64390384

|maindate=September 20, 2004
|currentstatus=FFA
}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=low}}
{{Controversial}}

----
''See also'': [[Talk:Electoral college]]

==Alleged (but not actually) Factual Errors==

* "Each elector casts one vote for President and one vote for Vice President. In order to be elected, a candidate must have a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes cast for that office. Should no candidate for President win a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is referred to the House of Representatives.[5] Should no candidate for Vice President possess a majority of the electoral votes, the choice is given to the Senate.[6]"

: I'll refrain from making any edits, but this paragraph is technically incorrect. A majority is 50% plus one. While in practice, a two party system ultimately results in either a majority or a tie, the wording of the constitution allows for a plurality, where no candidate receives the majority, but does receive more votes than any opponent, and is therefore elected. This paragraph should be reworded. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.113.8.130|64.113.8.130]] ([[User talk:64.113.8.130|talk]]) 23:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: The [[Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Text|Twelfth Amendment]] expressly requires a person receive a majority of the electoral votes for President or of the electoral votes for Vice President, in order for that person to be elected to either office by the Electoral College. If no person wins a majority for the Presidency, the House of Representatives makes the choice; if none for the Vice Presidency, the Senate makes the choice. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
{{resolved}}

* "On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, failed to receive the 67 votes, or two-thirds of those Senators voting, necessary to pass.[72] The vote was 54 to 36 in favor of the motion"

: The vote to pass a motion for cloture is presently set at 3/5ths, not 2/3rds. I don't know if this constitutes a historical error, as the necessary super-majority may have been altered by the membership of the Senate over the years. I shall check the article on the filibuster, and see if I can come to a determination on this point. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 11:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:: gee, don't you suppose it might have been a good idea to do that ''before'' posting here a claim of factual error that clearly is not a factual error? -- [[Special:Contributions/98.108.198.236|98.108.198.236]] ([[User talk:98.108.198.236|talk]]) 22:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

: The article on the filibuster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#United_States) seems to indicate that I was correct, and the cited 2/3rds super-majority constitutes a historical error in the article. I shall make the necessary adjustments. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 11:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

: Amusingly, there is actually a reference (which I was able to read while in edit mode) about the the Senate reducing the cloture super-majority from 2/3rds to 3/5ths, so if there are any "necessary adjustments" to be made, it may be at the filibuster article. [[User:KevinOKeeffe|KevinOKeeffe]] ([[User talk:KevinOKeeffe|talk]]) 11:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

:: From 1917 to 1975, a two-thirds vote was necessary for invocation of [[cloture]] (pre-1917, cloture did not exist). In 1975, the two-thirds requirement was lowered to three-fifths. So on September 17, 1970 a two-thirds vote was necessary for invoking cloture. [http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm Source] [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 22:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
{{resolved}}

* There is an apparent miswording in the paragraph that begins with the words "Scenarios exhibiting this outcome . . ." Through context it is clear that the word "suppresses" in the final sentence of this paragraph should be replaced by the word "expresses" in order to make logical sense. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.17.127.176|70.17.127.176]] ([[User talk:70.17.127.176|talk]]) 17:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: That paragraph is regarding the claim of Electoral College opponents that it overrides (or "suppresses") the Popular Vote. So the word should be "suppresses", not "expresses". [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 17:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
{{resolved}}

I think a lot of this article is inaccurate. Most of it presents points for and against state representation in an election, not necessarily for and against an electoral college. Keep in mind, without an electoral college, it can still be possible that states receive equal representation through congressional representation in the Senate. Please, I implore everyone to make this distinction and greatly revise this article. I believe it to be in great interest to all that this be done in the sake to prevent misinformation. I believe it to be that many people often blur the lines between these two inherently different concepts. Though state representation and the college of electors are undoubtedly linked, they are, in fact, not the same thing. I would invest more time into this subject if I had. But, please, research and revise the article. [[User:Rickman33|Rickman33]] ([[User talk:Rickman33|talk]]) 19:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

:Your comments don't make sense. "equal representation through congressional representation in the Senate"? What does that mean? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 19:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::If there is no more college of electors, we can still count votes as we currently do. If a candidate wins a state, he or she will receive a total tally according to the number of congressional seats for that state (electoral college or not). Even if a candidate wins a state by the slimmest of margins, the majority of residents of that state feel that candidate would be the best for the job and/or look out for the specific interests of their state. This is the idea of a federation. And hence, that candidate would receive all the votes/tallies for that state. But, what I meant by ''congressional representation in the Senate'' is that it's a continuation of the idea of a federation and the power of the states. By giving each state an additional 2 "tallies" for that state's senators, it provides each state with better representation in a national election. If there was no senate representation, a small state would account for only 1 vote compared to California's 53. That's 1.89% the amount of California's votes. With senate representation it's 3 to 55 (5.45%).

::People have different lifestyles and ideals. Sometime this is a result of where they live, sometimes they choose to live somewhere because of their lifestyle or ideals. If we just went to a general popular vote (without state representation) some states would hardly be represented in the election because of low population density. The thing is, there should be extra consideration for that state's "way of life", and more importantly for the fact that it is a state in the union. This is one principle of state representation in a federation (in this case, as it relates to a national election). What I'm saying is that when a candidate wins a state why not just count the tallies? I'm not exactly sure why we have the electoral college layer between the popular state vote and the tallies represented by the number of state representatives (members in house and senate). I suppose it could be used somehow as a measure in case the candidate all of a sudden changes his platform at the end of a campaign or something weird happens (maybe the candidate dies). A "faithless elector" could also reflect a small minority of disenchanted voters (maybe also reflecting a state where the candidate didn't strongly win). I don't know- this is all speculative on my part and would require some research and more thought.

::But, reiterating my point- each state votes for a pres and VP. Those candidates that win that state could receive those tallies that represent all that state's congressional seats without the use of an electoral college. I think that often times people say they want to get rid of the electoral college when what they actually mean is they want to choose the president & VP by national popular vote (not dependent on state voting). They often merge these two ideas when they are two separate things. [[User:Rickman33|Rickman33]] ([[User talk:Rickman33|talk]]) 10:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:::What you're describing would be the exact same result as the existing system, just minus the quaint trappings of the electors meeting and so on. And you're right that some people argue for getting rid of the electoral college and going to direct election. But don't forget what the point of the electoral college was. It was an extension of the Great Compromise that produced semi-proportional representation in the House, and equal representation in the Senate. The purpose had nothing to do with "lifestyles", it had to do with preventing the big states (Virginia, Massachusetts, etc.) from totally dominating the Congress, by affording the small states (Rhode Island, Delaware, etc.) the opportunity to form coalitions and such, and hold their own against the big states in the Senate. That's where the filibuster came from also - to prevent majority tyranny. If they had not made the Great Compromise, the small states would not have signed the Constitution, and we would have been more like Europe, a bunch of little nations instead of one big nation. The disproportionate high representation of states in the electoral college is for the same reason - it gives the smaller states a purposely disproportional voice in the matter. The public has forgotten the concept that it is "the states" who elect the President, not "the people". The practical effect of the current system is that candidates tend to campaign in many states. If it were by direct election, the small states would likely get ignored as the candidates would focus all their energies on the big states. That's the purpose of the electoral college system. And why bother with the electors? Well, here's another consideration: What if, between the day of the popular election and the electoral college voting, some information comes out about the President-elect that wouldn't legally disqualify him but which the public would likely not want in a President-elect. The system gives a theoretical opportunity to reject the President-elect. Your "automatic" approach, while retaining the disproportion theory of the electoral college, could result in being stuck with a bum for 4 years. At least the electoral college affords a "second chance" in light of any new information between November and December. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 11:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

== Possible grammatical mistake ==
English is not my mother tongue, so I can be mistaken, but perhaps someone should check this excerpt from the article: "Given the year 2000 allocation of electors, it is possible a candidate could win with only the hair's width support of the 11 largest states."
:It's kind of awkward phrasing but I don't see a grammatical issue as such. Although maybe it should be in past tense. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the phrase was "hair's-breadth."
[[User:Woodfold|woodfold]] ([[User talk:Woodfold|talk]]) 19:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== 2009 Date for Counting of Electoral College Ballots Needs Correcting ==
The main page is locked and I am not familiar with Wikipedia's methods, but the date for counting of the Electoral College ballots in 2009 will be January 8 and not January 6.
See Library of Congress record of the House Joint Resolution in 2008 which set the date for 2009.[http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110Yzc3qd::]
[[User:Ozdachs|Ozdachs]] ([[User talk:Ozdachs|talk]]) 02:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Ozdachs

:Ozdachs's link is dead. Here's a [http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/dates.html live link]. The change has been made. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 03:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

== Historical Role of Slavery ==
It seems to me there are some weaknesses in the early section that deals with the history of the electoral college's origins. Given how antiquated and cumbersome it seems to some, people want to know why the Founders developed this system in the first place. One part of the story which is missing entirely from this article (and the talk page) is the role of slavery.

Under the plan eventually adopted, each state would get the same number of electors as House representatives plus senators. The number of House reps was in turn based on population -- more precisely, free population ''plus three-fifths the number of slaves.'' Thus, number of presidential electors increased as slave population increased. In contrast, if the president was elected by popular vote, slaves would not be allowed to vote, and the influence of the slave states would be relatively diminished. This "problem" with direct election was raised explicitly by Madison during the Philadelphia Convention.

For more detail, see pp. 156-159 of Akhil Reed Amar's ''America's Constitution: A Biography'' (Random House, 2005). Madison's notes on the constitutional debates in Philadelphia are available through the Yale Law School's [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp Avalon Project]. [[User:Ivytoarmy|Ivytoarmy]] ([[User talk:Ivytoarmy|talk]]) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

:The [[three-fifths compromise]] was related to each State's number of Representatives. It's affect on the Electoral College was incidental at best. Any material regarding that compromise should be in the [[United States House of Representatives]] article. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with SMP0328. The debate over slavery concerned representation and was essentially complete before the decisions on the EC were finalized in the last two weeks of the Philadelphia Convention. As such, slavery had no direct influence over how the EC was to operate itself; it's arguable that it even had any indirect effect. It's more likely the case that the EC was built upon a framework which already took slavery into account, rather than was built itself with slavery in mind. As such, the point being made is too speculative to put into the article without academic cites which directly support that point. [[User:Foofighter20x|Foofighter20x]] ([[User talk:Foofighter20x|talk]]) 22:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::No doubt the EC was built upon a pre-existing framework, but one must still ask why they chose to re-use that particular framework rather than, for example, creating a mechanism for direct popular election of the president. (Please note: I'm not arguing that slavery was the ''only'' issue that made popular election unpopular with some delegates. But I think it was significant.)

::The request for evidence is fair. In addition to Amar's ''America's Constitution'', here's a chunk from Madison's notes, in which he recorded his own thoughts (using the third person) on the issue: "The people at large was in his [i.e. Madison's own] opinion the fittest [system for electing the President] in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. '''The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections'''." (From July 19, 1787.) [[User:Ivytoarmy|Ivytoarmy]] ([[User talk:Ivytoarmy|talk]]) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::: While Madison's own opinion is relevant, I'd like to know what the Committee of Eleven reported, as it's their opinions and reasons that count more. Madison did sit on that committee, but unless he's speaking for them, then his opinions or explanations are his own. What were the Committee's reasons? [[User:Foofighter20x|Foofighter20x]] ([[User talk:Foofighter20x|talk]]) 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::::I scanned Madison's notes some more, and it appears the Committee of Eleven's plan (looking here at August 24) was for the president to be elected by Congress, a plan which was obviously amended further. I can't (or at least haven't) found more details about why popular election was not taken up and to what extent slavery concerns shaped that debate. I think it's fair to say that slavery was thought about and influenced the shape of the various constitutional debates more than is apparent from a superficial reading of the convention records (or the Constitution itself). After all, the Constitution does not use the s-word at all, but nevertheless deals with the issue significantly. It was a subject they didn't like discussing openly and explicitly, but it clearly shaped their beliefs about the desirable structure of government.

::::Still, I concede that it's a point that needs further research and evidence. I'm content that the topic has at least been raised on the talk page. Hopefully others can bring more knowledge to bear. Others with access to better libraries than I have! [[User:Ivytoarmy|Ivytoarmy]] ([[User talk:Ivytoarmy|talk]]) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Popular election of the President was proposed at the Convention, but it was rejected ([http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/electoralcoll.htm Source]). [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 01:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::No doubt about that, but you seem to be missing the point. The question is why popular election was rejected, and whether or not its rejection was related to the fact that it would have diminished the influence of the slave-holding South relative to the electoral system. I've openly admitted that there were other reasons various convention delegates opposed popular election, but those don't preclude the slavery link. Regardless of the delegates' intentions, it is indisputable that ''in practice'' the adopted electoral system gave the slave-holding South greater influence in presidential elections than it would have had in a system of popular election (where presumably slaves could not vote). There seems to be a lot of resistance on here to even considering this historical aspect of the EC, which I must say I find perplexing. [[User:Ivytoarmy|Ivytoarmy]] ([[User talk:Ivytoarmy|talk]]) 04:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::My objection is to your desire to attribute that greater influence to the Electoral College. The three-fifths compromise, not the Electoral College, gave the slaveholding States the greater influence. Connecting the Electoral College to slavery would, however unintended, appear to be a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|POV push]].

:::::::The Convention's rejection of popular election of the President was not related to slavery. It was because the States wanted to be an intricate part of electing the President. It was felt that popular election would effectively make the States irrelevant in such an election. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 04:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::::I understand that the three-fifths compromise initially established greater influence for the slave-holding South; but it is worth asking why the delegates chose to re-use that same framework in designing the system of presidential election. My earlier Madison quotation makes clear that the delegates were at least aware that the system of presidential election did have a relationship with slavery, even if slavery was not the foremost issue on their minds.

::::::::I don't see how this constitutes a POV push. The [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV]] guidelines say that the goal is to represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This indirect link between slavery and the EC is not a pet theory that I cooked up on my own. I've adapted it directly from [[Akhil Amar|Akhil Reed Amar's]] ''America's Constitution: A Biography''. Given his prominence as a legal scholar, I think his work meets the standard of a reliable published source. I'm not saying he's infallible, but I think his views on this subject deserve exposure. If only on a talk page. [[User:Ivytoarmy|Ivytoarmy]] ([[User talk:Ivytoarmy|talk]]) 04:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::To support my earlier claim that intentions notwithstanding, the system was in practice influenced by slavery. Here is Amar: "The election of 1800-01 had also drawn the nation's attention, in the most dramatic fashion possible, to the Philadelphia plan's proslavery bias.... [it] made the three-fifths clause's electoral significance obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain. ''For without the added electoral votes created by the existence of Southern slaves, John Adams would have won the election of 1800--as everyone at the time plainly understood''" (''America's Constitution'', 345, emphasis in original). [[User:Ivytoarmy|Ivytoarmy]] ([[User talk:Ivytoarmy|talk]]) 05:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) While Amar certainly states the obvious, he describes the effects of the three-fifths compromise, and not the Framers' intentions behind the EC. The connection you are making is too tenuous. The evolution of the EC appears to have been away from popular election, which was categorically rejected; then migrated toward the structure of the southern states, whose legislatures elected the governor; but those who questioned the President's independence if elected by Congress then offered the indirect method based on Congressional representation. Slavery had nothing to with the EC. [[User:Foofighter20x|Foofighter20x]] ([[User talk:Foofighter20x|talk]]) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

:I gotta agree with Foofighter20x and SMP0328. Certainly EC representation is ultimately a consequence of the slavery compromise, but it's an incidental effect and too tenuous to be included in this article. It's already in the article ("the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise)") with the appropriate amount of weight. Interested readers can go to those article. Is it an interesting topic? Sure. That's why Amar covered it in the appropriate forum. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 17:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

== Original Plan section improvement ==

I came to this article looking for hard to find information on how exactly electors were chosen prior to the civil war era. There isn't much about it anywhere. I even bought a book about the Electoral College and it didn't give examples of how it worked in the 18th century. I know that they didn't simply base their votes on the popular vote, but I can't seem to find information on what they did do. I assume each state was free to choose their electors in whichever way they saw fit. It'd be nice to find examples. [[Special:Contributions/66.215.216.61|66.215.216.61]] ([[User talk:66.215.216.61|talk]]) 05:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

:What specifically in the article do you feel needs to be improved? [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:I could have sworn the "Alternative methods of choosing electors" section, with the montrously encoded table I put together, covered this adequately. If you want all the details I used to compile the table, see the following cite, which is in the article. -- [[User:Foofighter20x|Foofighter20x]] ([[User talk:Foofighter20x|talk]]) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Moore, John L., ed. (1985), ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (2nd ed.), Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., p. 254-256
:: You rock. I was looking for it in the history section. I should lrn2readtehholearticul. Seriously though, that table is excellent. I would like to know specifically how the state's legislators appointed electors if there are some examples. Did each member of their legislative houses vote on a series of people? Did the number of state legislators just happen to match the number of electoral votes and they each chose one elector? [[Special:Contributions/66.215.216.61|66.215.216.61]] ([[User talk:66.215.216.61|talk]]) 03:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
:::My cite didn't cover it in that depth of detail. You'd have to go back to the legislative records of each state to figure that out. Sorry! :\ -- [[User:Foofighter20x|Foofighter20x]] ([[User talk:Foofighter20x|talk]]) 04:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

== National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ==

This section is out of date, since Washington State approved the compact on April 28, 2009, making 61 EVs approved (209 needed).

As such it is inconsistent with the linked article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact.

References to the Washington State approval are in the linked article.[[User:Atocha|Atocha]] ([[User talk:Atocha|talk]]) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for pointing that out; welcome to Wikipedia. [[User:SMP0328.|SMP0328.]] ([[User talk:SMP0328.|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is Nation wide effort to protect the electoral college called "Save Our States". [http://saveourstates.org/] [[djatopia]] 29 October 2009

== Voting ==
How come some people insist that your vote will not count? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/151.202.71.151|151.202.71.151]] ([[User talk:151.202.71.151|talk]]) 13:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:This is covered to some extent in the section "Arguments against the Electoral College". A common basis for the claims is that, even in elections that are close at an eletoral college level, in a state that strongly favors a particular candidate, those voters' votes have less of an impact than those of voters in the "battleground" states.

:For example, in the 2004 election, it was pretty clear that California was going to go to Kerry. If you were a California voter, it didn't much matter whether you voted or not. If you supported Kerry, you could stay home, and he'd still carry the state. If you were a bush supporter, you could vote and he'd still lose. California's 55 electoral votes were going to Kerry.

:On the other hand, Ohio was up for grabs, with support split pretty evenly between Bush and Kerry. If you were an Ohio voter, you vote definitely mattered: whoever won that state got the entire 20 electoral college votes from the state. [[User:TJRC|TJRC]] ([[User talk:TJRC|talk]]) 20:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:53, 7 January 2010

jake yaros is,..........

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Electoral_College&oldid=336425076"