My opinion on some of the possible 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Candidates

Hillary Clinton: Former Secretary of State (2009-2013), Presidential Candidate (2008) Senator from New York (2001-2009) and First Lady of the United States (1993-2001)

In my Opinion the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the Democrats best chance of winning in 2016 and I think she would make a good President. What she has going for her is that one in a lot of polls taken she is ahead of her potential Republican Party opponents if she decided to run again, the second thing is that she used to be Secretary of State (though not the most successful one the country has ever had in some people's opinions) as well as this she was a Senator from New York for around eight years and before that she was First Lady of the United States with her husband Bill Clinton being President at the time. I think all these things could help immensely if she decides to run.

Joe Biden: Vice President of the United States (2009 to present), Senator from Delaware (1973-2009) and two time Presidential candidate (1988 and 2008)

I think Vice President Biden would also make a good President (he certainly has the experience) and would do just as well in 2016 as Hillary Clinton. Despite his experience he would have a few things not going for him if he decided to run, the first would be his age (by the time of the election in 2016 he would be 73) because he would be at the same age as former President Ronald Reagan was  when he ran for a second term in 1984, the second would be that President Obama is currently not as popular as he has been which could affect him if he decided to run. Overall I think he would he would be a great alternative if Hillary Clinton didn't run in 2016.

Elizabeth Warren: Senator from Massachusetts (2013 to present)

Like I said about Vice President Biden I think Senator Warren would make a good President, and could also present Hillary Clinton a serious challenge in 2016 if both decided to seek the Democratic Party nomination. Being as liberal as she is on issues I think if she was the Democrat Nominee in 2016 then the party would have to in my opinion balance the ticket with a more moderate or slightly conservative running mate.

Martin O'Malley: Governor of Maryland (2007 to present)

At the time of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Martin O'Malley will be the former Governor of Maryland, but I think he could still use this to his advantage given the current unpopularity with Congress by positioning himself as a Washington outsider just like former President Jimmy Carter did when he ran for president in 1976. Though despite this if Hillary Clinton decides to run in 2016 then I don't think he's got as great a chance of winning the Democratic Party nomination than if she didn't.

Andrew Cuomo: Governor of New York (2011 to present)

What I think Andrew Cuomo would have going for him in 2016 if he decided to run for President is that like Martin O'Malley he could position himself as a Washington outsider (admittedly he did serve as Secretary of Housing and Urban development from 1997-2001 in the Clinton administration). As well as doing this he is the Governor of a state that though leans considerably to his own party is still worth 29 electoral votes, along with Florida this is the second highest amount of electoral votes any state has.

Mark Warner: Senator from Virginia (2009 to present), Governor of Virginia (2002-2006)

Though having nowhere near as high a profile as Hillary Clinton I think Senator Warner could make an ok kind of President or if not that then a Vice President. What he has going for him is that he is currently a Senator and use to be a Governor which means he has a mix of executive and legislative experience and that he is from the State of Virginia which is considered a battleground state in Presidential Elections.

Deval Patrick: Governor of Massachusetts (2007 to present)

Despite the fact that Deval Patrick is retiring as Governor of Massachusetts this year I still think he could make a good President if he decided to run in 2016 plus being friend of President Obama could help depending on the area despite the Presidents unpopularity. And like with any over Governor that decides to run for President in 2016 he could position himself as a Washington outsider.


Brian Schweitzer: Governor of Montana (2005-2013)

Though the former Governor of Montana is a long shot if he did decide to run for President in 2016 if think what he would have going for him is that he was the Democratic Governor of what is now considered to be a very Republican leaning state, plus Montana has not been won by the Democrats in a Presidential Election since 1992.

Howard Dean: Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (2005-2009), Presidential candidate (2004), Governor of Vermont (1991-2003

Though I think he would be a long shot in 2016 I think Howard Dean could make a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton if she decided not to run. He's got the experience in my opinion because he was Governor of Vermont between 1991 and 2003 and ran for President in 2004, plus he being a former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee means that he would have considerable fund raising experience as well as political connections.

Bernie Sanders: Senator From Vermont (2007 to present), Representative from Vermont's At-large Congressional District (1991-2007)

Bernie Sanders is technically an Independent but the reason why I have included him in this list is that I was recently reading an article (link is at the bottom) on USA TODAY which said that some of his supporters want him to run as a Democrat in 2016 if he did decide to run. I personally think he would have little chance of winning the Democratic Party nominee in 2016 if he ran as a Democrat but I do think he would give any  Democrat who decided to run a good challenge.

Link to Article which is my reason for including Bernie Sanders in this list:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/09/08/sanders-presidential-run-party-affilation/15146337/

New Zealand General Election: 20th of September 2014

On the 20th of September 2014 I will be posting the initial results of the 2014 New Zealand General Election. Below is a video from www.elections.org.nz featuring Lorde talking about voting

My opinion on some of the possible 2016 GOP Presidential Candidates

 

 Jeb Bush: Former Governor of Florida (1999-2007), Son of former President George H. W. Bush and Brother of former President George W. Bush

 

Personally I think Jeb Bush is the Republicans best chance of retaking the White House in 2016, my reason for this being that one he used to be the Governor of the State of Florida which has a total of 29 electoral votes, two in a lot of polls of a hypothetical matchup between and potential Democratic Party candidate Hilary Clinton he comes the closest to beating her out of all the other potential 2016 Republican candidates included and my third reason is that he is the son of a former President and the brother of another one as well. 

Chris Christie: Current Governor of New Jersey (2010 to present)

I think Chris Christie would make a good Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate for the the Republicans (despite the Washington Bridge scandal) because he is a Republican Governor of a state that leans towards the Democratic Party (the Republican Party has not won this state in a Presidential Election since 1988), also New Jersey has a total of 14 electoral votes.

Marco Rubio: Junior United States Senator from Florida (2011 to present)

Marco Rubio in my opinion could make a good Presidential candidate in 2016 because he is a Senator from Florida which as already stated has a total of 29 electoral votes, plus being Latino himself he could help shake the image that the Republicans are a party more for white people. As well as this he is seen as more conservative than Jeb Bush or Chris Christie so he could balance the ticket in either the Presidential or Vice Presidential slot.

Rand Paul: Junior United States Senator from Kentucky (2011 to present), son of former Texas congressman and two time Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul

I think Rand Paul would only make an average Presidential candidate in 2016 because the only thing he's got going for him apart from the fact of being a Senator from Kentucky is the fact that his father the former Texas congressman Ron Paul ran for President in the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections, so he could get some advice from his father. Also I think he should either decide to run for President or for reelection to the Senate not both.

Paul Ryan: 2012 Republican Vice Presidential nominee and Congressman from Wisconsin's 1st district (1999 to present)

The fact that Paul Ryan was the 2012 Republican Vice Presidential nominee could come in handy if he decides to run for President in 2016, but I don't think he would be a good choice because he is only a congressman and therefor has a small constituency in a state that only has a total of 10 electoral votes. Plus Wisconsin hasn't been won by the Republicans in a Presidential Election since 1984 when former President Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory against his Democratic Party opponent former Vice President Walter Mondale.

Rick Perry: Governor of Texas (2000 to present) and 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate

Despite him not being able to remember the third Federal agency he was going to cut if elected President in 2012 I think Rick Perry would make not a great President but an ok one. The reason for this being that he has been Governor of the state of Texas since December 21 2000, he's not as conservative and more electable than Ted Cruz and Texas has a total of 38 electoral votes.

Bobby Jindal: Governor of Louisiana (2008 to present)

Being the Governor of a Southern state, that the  Republican Party is almost certain to win in 2016 whether he's their nominee or not is not something that Bobby Jindal has going for him but being the son of Indian immigrants could be helpful if the Republican Party wanted to broaden it's voter base in 2016.

Ted Cruz: Junior United States Senator from Texas (2013 to present)

If the Republicans want to lose the 2016 Presidential Election then I think Ted Cruz would be the candidate to chose. My reason for thinking this is that he's pretty much the leader of the ultra conservative Tea party faction of the Republican Party and the complete opposite to President Obama (Americas first African American President) who won reelection over former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney in 2012.

Scott Walker: Governor of Wisconsin (2011 to present)

Being Governor of Wisconsin could give Scott Walker a better chance of winning the state if he decides to run in 2016 than fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan, though I think this is probably the only thing he's got going for him.

 

Australian Politics: The Australian Political System

 

In Australia their parliament is made of the House of Representatives( Lower House) and the Senate (Upper House). There are 150 seats in the House of Representatives and 76 in the Senate (they have three and six year terms respectively), members of both of these are elected by different methods. The first of these is called preferential voting which is used to elect members of the House. The way that it works is that a candidate has to have an absolute majority (more than 50%) of the votes to be elected, in the case that none of the candidates gets the required number of votes then the one with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his or her votes go to the candidates that the different voters ranked next e.g. the ones they preferred more. This process is repeated until one of the candidates has an absolute majority. The second method is a form of proportional voting called Single Transferable Vote (STV), the way that this works is that a candidate is elected when his or her number of votes is equal to or exceeds the quota. The way the quota works is that if there are 20,000 votes and 8 candidates then the quota would be 20,000 divided by (8+1) + 1= 2,223. So the candidates would need to get 2,223 votes or more to get elected.

Political Parties with Federal Representation in Australia

Coalition (Australia):

Founded: 1945

Leader: Tony Abbot (2009 to present, Prime Minister 2013 to Present)

Number of seats in the Senate: 23

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 58

Founded: 2008

Leader: Campbell Newman (2011 to present)

Number of seats in the Senate: 6

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 22

Founded: 1920

Leader: Warren Truss (2007 to present, Deputy Prime Minister 2013 to present)

Number of seats in the Senate: 3

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 9

Founded: 1974

Leader: Adam Giles (2013 to present)

Number of seats in the Senate: 1

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 1

Australian Labor Party:

 

Founded: 1901

Leader: Bill Shorten

Number of seats in the Senate: 25

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 55

Australian Greens:

Founded: 1992

Leader: Christine Milne (2012 to present)

Number of seats in the Senate: 10

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 1

Palmer United Party:

Founded: 2013

Leader: Clive Palmer

Number of seats in the Senate: 3

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 1

Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party:

Founded: 2013

Leader: Tony Standfield

Number of seats in the Senate: 1

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 0

Liberal Democratic Party (Australia):

 

Founded: 2001

Leader: Gabriel Buckley

Number of seats in the Senate: 1

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 0

Family First Party:

Founded: 2001

Leader: Bob Day

Number of seats in the Senate: 1

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 0

Democratic Labor Party:

Founded: 1955

Leader: John Madigan

Number of seats in the Senate: 1

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 0

Katter's Australian Party:

Founded: 2011

Leader: Bob Katter (2011 to present)

Number of seats in the Senate: 0

Number of seats in the House of Representatives: 1 

 

Random Blog Post of the Day: Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor Links Opponent to Ebola Outbreak

Democratic Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas

Though I'm not an American citizen when it comes to American Politics most of the time I would support/agree with the Democrats over the Republicans, though in this case I Don't agree with the Senator from Arkansas Mark Pryor linking his Republican opponent to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. I think thats a little desperate on Senator Pryor's part because the Ebola outbreak is a serious issue, and has absolutely nothing to do with this years Senate race in Arkansas or his Republican opponent Representative Tom Cotton. Plus I think if you are going to attack your political opponent in an add (this can be seen below)  you shouldn't use something like the Ebola outbreak.

Link to article: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/arkansas-sen-mark-pryor-links-opponent-ebola-outbreak-n189461

Random Blog Post of the Day: Mayor of London, England Boris Johnson confirms Uxbridge as target seat

Current Mayor of London, England and Former MP for Henley

I admit when it comes to British Politics I don't know much about it, but from what I have read and seen about the current Mayor of London and former MP Boris Johnson I think he would make a somewhat good MP. The reason for this being that he used to be an MP for Henley before becoming  Mayor, and the fact that he has been twice elected Mayor of London as the Conservative Party candidate both times with slightly over 50% of the popular vote. There are also rumours that if the current Prime Minister of Great Britain David Cameron steps down after next years general election because of not being able to deliver on his promise of holding a referendum on whether or not Britain should stay in the European Union (EU) that Jonnson himself would seek to be the leader of the Conservative Party. Though I wouldn't support the party myself if I were a British citizen, I still think he would make a good leader of the Conservative Party and certainly a more likable one.

Link to article:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28935394

Random Blog Post of the Day: Labour's three gender options for passports

Labour Party MP for Manurewa Louisa Wall

Louisa Wall (she also introduced her same sex marriage bill which got passed into law in New Zealand last year) has released one of the Labour Parties policies, which is that under a Labour led Government they would have three gender options for passports as well as drivers' licences. Usually I don't tend to support Labours policies but I fully support this one because I think it will go some way to ending discrimination againt the LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and ) community in New Zealand, though in an election year I don't think it will get them many more votes. A better part of the policy in my opinion is that Labour wants the laws changed so that so that couples who are not married or same sex couples in a civil union can adopt. The Labour Party also wants better support for young people who are bullied because of their sexual identities, I think this part of the policy along with the part about adoption will be more likely to get them votes . So to end I fully support this policy from the Labour Party even though I usually don't tend to support their other ones.

Link to article:  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11314694

Random Blog Post of the Day: Key says daughter should be off limits

Prime Minister John Key

I wholeheartedly agree with the Prime Minister John Key on this, the hip hop band @peace in a song they did criticising him as Prime Minister referenced to his daughter. I think as well as his daughter the rest of his family should be off limits as well, because none of them are even relevant to his job as Prime Minister or to the New Zealand General Election this year. Not even the Labour Party who are National's main opposition in parliament have used his family or more specifically his daughter in any of their attacks against him at any point since he became Prime Minister in 2008. I think @peace are just being petty by doing this and just trying to get some attention by taking advantage of it being an election year in the country.

Link to article:  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11314552

Tim Scott of @peace

Canadian Politics: The Political System of Canada

The Canadian political system is First Past the Post where there are a certain number of electoral districts and each of those has a representative in parliament. In the case of Canada there are 308 electoral districts with each one having a Representative (British Columbia has 36, Alberta has 28, Saskatchewan has 14, Manitoba also has 14, Ontario has 106, Quebec has 75, Newfoundland and Labrador has 7, Nova Scotia has 11, New Brunswick has 10 and Prince Edward Island has 4. Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories each have one).

As well as the House of Commons Canada also has an upper house called the Senate, the members of the Senate are appointed by the Governor General of Canada on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (the current one is Steven Harper of the Conservative Party of Canada). The Senate currently has 105 members drawn from each of the provinces and territories, with British Columbia having 5, Alberta 6, Saskatchewan 6, Manitoba 3, Ontario 20, Quebec 21, Newfoundland and Labrador 6, Nova Scotia 8, New Brunswick 10 and Prince Edward Island 3. Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories each have one Senator.

 

 

Political Parties with Federal Representation in Canada

Conservative Party of Canada:

Founded: 2003

Leader: Stephen Harper (2004 to present, Prime Minister of Canada 2006 to present)

Number of Seats in the Senate: 57

Number of Seats in the House of Commons: 161

New Democratic Party:

Founded: 1961

Leader: Thomas Mulcair (2012 to present, Leader of the Opposition 2012 to Present)

Number of Seats in the Senate: 0

Number of Seats in the House of Commons: 99

Liberal Party of Canada:

Founded: 1867

Leader: Justin Trudeau (2013 to Present)

Number of Seats in the Senate: 32

Number of Seats in the House of Commons: 36 

Bloc Québécois:

Founded: 1991

Leader: Mario Beaulieu (June 25, 2014 to present)

Number of Seats in the Senate: 0

Number of Seats in the House of Commons: 3

Green Party of Canada:

Founded: 1983

Leader: Elizabeth May (2006 to Present)

Number of Seats in the Senate: 0

Number of Seats in the House of Commons: 2

New Zealand Politics: My opinion on why it's a bad idea for a minor political party to do an electoral deal with the National Party

Former MP and Act Party leader John Banks (left) and Prime Minster John Key having a cup of tea in Epsom

The reason why I think it's a bad idea for a minor political party to do an electoral deal with the National Party is that it makes them too reliant on effectively being given a seat, and not concentrating enough on getting over the five percent threshold (this is the minimum amount of the popular vote which a political party has to get to gain representation in parliament). An example of this is the electoral deal in Epsom that the National Party did with the Act Party in 2011, overall Act got 1.07% of the popular vote and normally would not have got back into parliament, but because of the deal it did with National shown in the picture above they managed to get one seat. Now in 2014 leading up to the General Election this year the One News Colmar Brunton Poll from the 19th to the 23rd of July  has the Act at 1% support. Another Colmar Brunton Poll this one of the Epsom electorate initially had the National candidate Paul Goldsmith at 44% of the vote and Act candidate David Seymour at 32%, it was only when they reminded people about the deal between National and Act  that David Seymour took the lead with 45% to Paul Goldsmith's 31%. My further opinion on this is that Act should concentrate on getting it's percentage of the popular vote up to what it was at the 1996, 1999 and 2002 General Elections, these were 6.1%, 7% and 7.1% respectively. These are the reasons why I think it's a bad idea for a minor political party to do a deal with the National party especially if your Act who without an electoral deal with National would be going the way of the Dodo.

A General Timeline of some of the historical and current Third Parties in the United States

Just some of the logos of some of the third parties currently in the United States

•  Anti-Masonic Party: This party was founded in 1828 and dissolved around ten years later in 1838. They ran a candidate in the 1832 U.S. Presidential Election, it was former United States Attorney General William Wirt who manged to win the state of Vermont and get seven electoral votes, as well as this he got around about 7.8% of the popular vote.
 

• Free-Soil Party: This party was founded in 1848 and dissolved in 1854. This party ran two candidates, the first was former President Martin Van Buren (1837-1841), despite being a former President he did not win any electoral votes and only 10% of the popular vote. Their second candidate who they ran in the 1852 Presidential Election was John P. Hale who again won no electoral votes and only 4.9% of the popular vote.

•   Know Nothing/American Party: This party was founded around about 1845 and dissolved in 1860. Their candidate who they ran in the 1856 Presidential Election was former President Millard Fillmore (1850-1853) who won the state of Maryland getting eight electoral votes. He managed to get 21.5% of the popular vote which for a third party in the United States is pretty good.

• Constitutional Union Party: This party was founded in 1859 and dissolved around 1865. The only candidate they ever ran in an election was John Bell in the 1860 Presidential Election, in this election Bell won the states of Virginia, Kentucky and his home state of Tennessee giving him 39 electoral votes and 12.6% of the popular vote. What I find interesting about this election is that John Bell came third (this was because of the split in the Democratic Party) behind Abraham Lincoln of Republican party who got 180 electoral votes and John C. Breckinridge of the Southern Democrats who got 72 electoral votes. Below John Bell in terms of the number of electoral votes was Stephen A. Douglas of the Democratic party who got 12 electoral votes.

• Populist Party: This party was founded in 1891 and dissolved around seventeen years later in 1908. Their candidate in the 1892 Presidential Election was James B. Weaver who won the states of Kansas, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and won some electoral votes in the states of North Dakota and Oregon, he also won 8.5% of the popular vote.

• Progressive Party: This party was founded in 1912 by former President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) and dissolved in 1916. Their candidate in the 1912 Presidential Election was the party founder himself Theodore Roosevelt who won the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota, Washington and won a majority of the electoral votes in the state of California. This gave him eighty eight electoral votes and 27.4% of the popular vote.

•  Progressive Party (1924): This party was founded in 1924 and dissolved around 1946. Their candidate in this election was Robert M. La Follette Sr who only won the state of Wisconsin where he was from. This gave him thirteen electoral votes and 16.6% of the popular vote.

• States Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrats): This party was founded in 1948 and dissolved in that same year. Their candidate in the 1948 Presidential Election was Strom Thurmond who won the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and one electoral vote in the state of Tennessee. This gave him thirty nine electoral votes, he also got 2.4% of the popular vote.

• American Independent Party: This party was founded in 1967 and has not been dissolved as of August 2014. Their most successful candidate was George Wallace who in the 1968 Presidential Election won the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and one electoral vote in North Carolina. This gave him forty six electoral votes as well as 13.5% of the popular vote.

• Reform Party:  This party was founded in 1995 by Texas billionaire Ross Perot who had run in the 1992 Presidential Election as an independent and got 18.9% of the popular vote. In the 1996 Presidential Election as the Reform Party candidate he did not win any electoral votes and only 8.4% of the popular vote.

• Green Party of the United States: This party was founded in 1991 and has contested every presidential election since 1996. Their most successful candidate was Ralph Nader who in the 2000 Presidential election got 2.74% of the popular vote.

• Libertarian Party: This  was founded in 1971 and is currently the largest third party in the United States. It has contested every Presidential Election since 1972 with their most successful candidate being Ed Clark in 1980 where he got 1.06% of the popular vote.

• Justice Party: This party was founded in 2011. Their only Presidential candidate so far has been former Mayor of Salt Lake City Utah Rocky Anderson who in the 2012 Presidential Election got 0.03% of the popular vote.

•  Constitution Party: This party was originally founded as the U.S. Tax Payers' party in 1992 but changed its name to its current one in 1999. This party has contested every Presidential Election since 1992 with its most successful Presidential candidate being Howard Phillips who in the 1996 Presidential Election got 0.19% of the popular vote.

Proposals to change how the United States Electoral College system works

This shows the one electoral vote that then Senator from Illinois Barack Obama got in Nebraska due to how that state awards it's electoral votes

 There have been numerous proposals to change how the Electoral College system works in each state, one of which was proposed by the Pennsylvania state senate majority leader Dominic Pileggi (he is from the Republican Party). He proposes that the state of Pennsylvania should change the way it awards it's electoral votes from the winner takes all approach (this means that which ever candidate wins the popular vote in that state also gets that states electoral votes) which is used in most of the fifty states with the exceptions being in the states of Maine and Nebraska to a system where by eighteen of the electoral votes would be awarded to which ever candidate wins a particular congressional district e.g. if you won the popular vote in nine of the congressional districts you would get nine of Pennsylvania’s electoral votes. The remaining two would be awarded to the candidate who won the state wide popular vote. This Proposal by Pileggi is similar to the systems already in place in the two already mentioned states of Maine and Nebraska (President Obama got one electoral vote from Nebraska in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election). Another proposal to change how the Electoral College works comes from a person called Hal Nickle from California, they wanted it changed by getting the Secretary of State of California to determine the percentage of the popular vote received by each Presidential candidate down to the nearest one hundredth of a percentile and then multiply what ever the percentage is by the number of Presidential Electors California has which is 55, then if the number of electoral votes each candidate got did not equal the number of electors, the rest would be awarded to the candidate with highest percentage of the popular vote, (this proposal did not qualify to go on the ballot. The full proposal can be read here  https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/13-0049%20%2813-0049%20%28Electoral%20Votes%29%29.pdf?). If this were how the electoral votes were awarded in California then in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election President Obama would have got 35 electoral votes and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney would have got 20. My personal opinion on this would be to leave the Electoral College as it is even if it is somewhat unfair.

How Does The United States Electoral College Work

How the Electoral College works is that each state chooses a certain number of people called electors, how many electors the states chose was stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 "the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government" (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_68.html). The number of electors is the same as each states number of electoral votes. Most of the time these electors cast their votes for whichever presidential candidate has won the popular vote in that state, though there have been quite a few times where there has been what is called a faithless elector. This is where at least one of the electors in a state votes for a candidate other than the one who won the popular vote. Some examples of this in presidential elections have been in the 1988 U.S. Presidential Election where a faithless elector in West Virginia cast their vote for the Democratic parties Vice Presidential candidate then Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, another example was in the 1976 U.S. Presidential Election where a faithless elector in the state of Washington cast their vote for Ronald Reagan who had at the time previously served two terms as Governor of California, he would also go on to serve two terms as President of the United States winning landslide victories in the 1980 and 1984 Presidential Elections respectively. A third and final example is in the 1956 U.S. Presidential Election where a faithless elector in Alabama cast their vote for Walter Burgwyn Jones (he was a circuit court judge at the time) instead of the Democratic parties candidate for President Adlai Stevenson II. There have also been numerous other examples of faithless electors in U.S. Presidential Elections. There have been various proposals to change how the electoral college works, some of which I will try and discuss in another blog post.