Comments about ‘Utah officially votes for McCain’

Are you sure they just don't want Obama in office? I don't know many who really WANTED McCain in office.

In other news: Water is reportedly wet, bears relieve themselves in the woods, and the Pope wears a funny hat.

what???
Are Utahans still living in this pathetic state of denial? ELECTION IS OVER. LOSERS: MCCAIN AND PALIN. WINNERS: OBAMA AND BIDEN.


END OF STORY.

If you would have taken the time to actually read the story you would understand that the electoral college is a "formality" --- as they put it in the story. Each state (not only Utah) went through a similar exercise. This has nothing to do with anyone denying anything, it is something was called for in a document called the Constitution of the United States.

Actually the article is helpful in understanding the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college (something that many people do not understand).

Dude, you need to go to school. Ever heard of the Electoral College? Did you even read the article?

re:??? Maybe you should go back to jr high school and take an american government couse and find out what goes on when apresidential election is raken(has taken) place electoral college is part of that process.. HELLO, is any body home?? The light are onbut rather dim.

Dang!

well i dont think these utah politicians didnt vote like they should since there was three counties(which are three of the biggest)that was for obama
these utah media are living in old times and mormon times. the senators are soppose to vote for what there districts wanted. we are in a 60% mormon population as 20 years was a 90 % mormon population

also look at the economic times, 2 months ago politicians and media announced utah was better than the nation. now they are saying the opposite. two major corporations, all construction, and home mortgage are in turmoil. you cant trust anyone now.

Surprisingly, the U.S. is the only democratic government where the people do NOT directly choose their president. The people vote for "electors", the number of which for each state is determined by adding their total representatives and senators. In Utah, there are 5 electors (based on 3 representatives and 2 senators).

Since there are 100 senators and 435 members of the house (D.C. gets 3 electoral votes although it has no representatives or senators), there are 538 electoral votes nationwide, and a presidential candidate needs to win a majority (270 votes) to become president. Theoretically, it is possible for a candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, but still win the electoral college, and become president. Actually, it has happened 3 times, in 1876, 1888, and 2000.

I'm sorry, but I could not follow anything you wrote. I'm trying to decide if I agree or disagree with you, but I don't think that I didn't get what you might not have meant or maybe you did.

I wonder why in this article there was no mention of the word "Historic" like there was yesterday. That's because the "Historic" aspect of this election, the victory of Obama, wasn't even mentioned by these electors. They had to vote for McCain based on the state returns but calling it "Historic" was empty because they didn't even mention what was "Historic" about the election.

All this just adds another reason why I think the Republican Party is shallow, pety, and partisian in our state. What is truely "Historic" is that Utah is no longer the reddest of red states. People are awakening to a new day.

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. In 2004 two-thirds of the visits and money were focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money went to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people were merely spectators to the presidential election. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votesthat is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators 460 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.