electoral college, please read
 

http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/20...reat-idea.html

i hope everyone will take the time to read this article. it's a good explanation of why it works, and why a simple majority vote wouldn't be as good of a system, and what problems could arise if we changed how we select our president.

an excerpt:

A system in which each candidate has to get a small majority in a large number of states is a good system to keep a polarized democracy together. A straight popular vote, in which one could win by getting huge majorities in some areas and lose by huge majorities in other areas, is a disaster waiting to happen.


madison warned of a tyrannical majority. not in the government, but in the country. consider what happened the last time parties became a party of geography instead of a party of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...College_margin


here is a link to a page listing the presidents margins of victory in each election thru 2000. good info, as it'll show just how close elections have been in the past.
it is not a fact that this country is split more than it's ever been. there have always been polarizations in this country. whether it was over the tariff laws back when jackson was president, which the north was happy about, while the south was not...or whether bridges, roads and canals should be built, or the decision on whether a territory should become a state, there has always been a content, winning side, and a disgruntled unhappy loser.
recently, texas mentioned secession in reaction to obamacare-how absurd. that same threat was used by the south for decades, until they finally carried thru on their threat. and that would have happened much sooner, had voting been simple majority rather than an electoral process.


the electoral college exists so as to keep all states, and thus, all their populations, in the decision making process of electing the president. who here wishes for a single small bloc of states to have the say so in who gets elected? with the electoral college, the process remains a national fight, not just a regional one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ar_vote_margin


the above has a list of presidents margins of victory in the popular vote.

i really thought this thread would draw some folks and some comments, since it's such a big issue right now.

or maybe it's not really a big issue!

I think the electorial votes should be divided equally between the 50 states. 10.76 a peice. In the event of a tie they could hold a mud wrestling match between their wives on St. Thomas.

and people were howling that romney might get a higher popular vote! this would really provoke some people.

i'll have to see what the results would be if that happened.


edit~depends on florida.

right now, it's 25 states for obama to 24 in favor of romney. obama with the majority popular vote.

romney's campaign conceeded florida late yesterday.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1199078

Unbelievable.


A vote by the majority of the populous would bring down this country.

And I'll be darned ,Yakity Danny goes googlie over it.

so obama would be ahead by 2 states in that situation.

Great articles, thanks for taking the time to post them.

You're kinda preaching to the choir, here, though, I have no desire to eliminate the electoral college. The explanations and info the articles were good, thanks.

One suggestion I've heard before that might be interesting would be to keep the same basic system but to pass a constitutional amendment that grants the winner of the national popular vote some number of electoral votes. Maybe something like eight or ten.

That would preserve the basic foundations of the electoral college, but at the same time make it less likely that one candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college. It would also give people who live in non-competitive states a bit more incentive to vote in close national elections, while at the same time preserving the merits of the state-based elections we currently have.

who got d.c.'s electoral votes? didn't think about them. probably obama.

it's only actually happened four times in all the elections (56)that have been held. bush was the first in 112 years. and considering that the subsequent recounts show in several scenarios bush should have lost the election, then actually the electoral process was skewed because of the fla debacle.
bush didn't win altho he had less votes, he won because the recount process was stopped, and the fla electorals given to him.