| Line 157: |
Line 157: |
| | == States Determine Election Procedures == | | == States Determine Election Procedures == |
| | | | |
| − | Under the Constitution, [[State]]s determine the procedures for [[election|electing]] their [[congress]]men. State law sets the primary dates on which each political party picks its nominee for the general election in November. If neither candidate receives more than 50% on [[Election Day]], then some States require “run-offs” before declaring a victor, while other States simply declare the candidate who won a plurality to be the victor. | + | Under the Constitution, [[State]]s determine the procedures for [[election|electing]] their [[congress]]men. State law sets the primary date on which the political parties pick their nominees for the general election in November. If neither candidate receives more than 50% on [[Election Day]], then some States require “run-offs” before declaring a victor, while other States simply declare the candidate who won a plurality to be the victor. |
| | | | |
| − | For example, if John Smith received 48% and Mary Doe procured 47%, and minor party [[candidate]]s totaled 5%, then a run-off would feature an election between only John Smith and Mary Doe a few weeks later. With only two candidates on the ballot for the run-off, then at least one will win a majority of the vote. | + | For example, if John Smith received 48% and Mary Doe procured 47%, and minor party [[candidate]]s totaled 5% in votes, then a run-off would feature an election between only John Smith and Mary Doe a few weeks later. With only two candidates on the ballot for the run-off, then at least one will win a majority of the vote. |
| | | | |
| | States that do not utilize “run-off” elections would simply declare John Smith the winner, despite his failure to receive 50% of the [[vote]]. | | States that do not utilize “run-off” elections would simply declare John Smith the winner, despite his failure to receive 50% of the [[vote]]. |
| | | | |
| − | In our [[president]]ial [[election]]s, the Constitution does not provide for a run-off. Many presidents have won without ever receiving a majority of the votes cast by the American public, but they receive a majority of the votes cast by the [[Electoral College]]. | + | In our [[president]]ial [[election]]s, the Constitution does not provide for a run-off. Many presidents have won without ever receiving a majority of the votes cast by the American public, but they received a majority of the votes cast by the [[Electoral College]]. |
| | | | |
| − | When there is no run-off, occasionally (but rarely) a candidate can win because his opponents split their vote. Two examples of [[president]]s who because of vote-splitting are [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and [[George W. Bush]] in 2000) | + | When there is no run-off, occasionally a candidate can win because his opponents split their vote. Two examples of [[president]]s who because of vote-splitting are [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and [[George W. Bush]] in 2000. |
| | | | |
| | A senator who won due to vote-splitting was conservative James Buckley in [[New York]] in 1970. But victories due to vote-splitting are quite rare. | | A senator who won due to vote-splitting was conservative James Buckley in [[New York]] in 1970. But victories due to vote-splitting are quite rare. |