The House of Representatives votes for the President from among the top three electoral candidates, with each state delegation casting one vote.
No, California has 55 electoral votes while Rhode Island has 4. Each of the individual electoral votes are worth the same amount.
When nobody receives votes from more than half of the electors, the U.S. House of Representatives elects the President from among the top three presidential candidates with the most electoral votes, and the U.S. Senate elects the Vice President from between the top two vice-presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. That's how John Quincy Adams got elected in 1825 despite being less popular and receiving fewer electoral votes than Andrew Jackson, and the same rules are still in effect today.
That happens because the electoral votes are not given in the same proportions as the popular votes received. Virtually every state uses the "winner-takes-all" method of appointing electors. If, for example, 48% of a state's popular votes are cast in favor of Candidate A, 47% support Candidate B, and 5% support Candidate C, Candidate A gets 100% of that state's electoral votes and Candidates B & C don't get any.The Electoral College casts the electoral votes. It is comprised of representatives of each state. While the popular vote is held to have an impact on the Electoral College's decisions on who to vote for, it is not illegal for the Electoral College to vote another way. In addition, not every state has the same amount of electoral votes. It is possible for more people total to vote for a president, but since they are so spread throughout the states, the Electoral Votes may end in another way.
Yes, but only in Nebraska and Maine, where in sted of a winner take all in the state, it is winner takes on congressional districs
of course not ......... an overwhelming victory basicly means like when you're running a race and you finish it then that's an overwhelming victory. winning by a large amount of votes is different that's when you compete in competition and win by more votes
None of the presidential election candidates received more than half of all electoral votes in 1824. Whenever that happens, the task of electing the President goes to the House of Representatives. They did not elect the person who received the most popular votes AND the most electoral votes. Although their action did not reflect the will of the people, it's perfectly legal. And the same laws are still in effect, so the same thing could happen again the next time we have a VERY strong third party candidate.
In 1800, much as today, if no one received a majority of the electoral votes. the House would elect a president from among the top five (now three) candidates with each state getting one vote. The person remaining with the most electoral votes would be vice-president unless two or more had the same number of votes. In this case, the Senate would choose the vice-president from among these top candidates.
True. A primary election is held when there are too many candidates running for the same position. When the primary election is over, the 2 candidates with the most votes will be eligible for the general election.
The vernal or autumnal equinox happens.
The electorate at that time could vote for both the president and vice president separately, and the vote did not distinguish whether it was for president or vice president. Both Jefferson and Burr got a majority of votes, so the house had to vote to decide who was president and who was vice president.
Remains the same
The largest amount of votes decides the laws.