Which is Right? The Popular Vote or the Electoral College?
CNN has come up with a poll analysis that points out what I have been saying regarding the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college vote. It has happened three times in our history, when the candidate who won the popular vote lost the electoral college vote and thus the Presidency – 1876, 1888 and 2000.
The way it is now, the team of McCain/Palin is leading in the popular vote by about 2%. CNN came up with this figure by averaging the 5 latest poll from 5 different sources. The way the electoral college vote is now, according to CNN, is Obama with 243 votes either firmly in his column or leaning his way. McCain has 189 votes. With 270 needed to win, Obama just needs one of the swing states like Florida to put him over the top. McCain has a lot more work to do. My latest count gives Obama 248, so we are pretty close.
With 8 weeks to go, anything can happen and probably will, so this will change, but it does show that we could have the same thing happen again, with the winning candidate either losing the popular vote or winning by a very small margin and yet having a huge lead in the electoral college.
This is why you will see the candidates spending most of their time in Colorado 9 votes, Florida 27 votes, Indiana 11 votes, Michigan 17 votes, Missouri 11 votes, Montana 3 votes, Nevada 5 votes, New Hampshire 4 votes, North Carolina 15 votes, North Dakota 3 votes, Ohio 20 votes, Virginia 13 votes and Wisconsin 10.
The state by state polls that gives you the best picture of the race because the President is elected state by state, not by the national popular vote. Lots argue that the electoral college is an extremely dated system. Currently there are movements for a national vote to elect the president. But in know way can we hope for a change before this election, or even the next.
There have been many attempts to either abolish the electoral college or to change it some way. The way it is figured out now, each state gets one elector for each senator and congressperson that state has. And that changes with each census every 10 years. Maybe that is the reason why there is such a difference in close elections. Think about it. It has been 8 years now since the last census and lets face it people have moved about. As a matter of fact, it is expected that some of the states with a larger number of electoral college votes will loose some once the next census is counted. So maybe it is not an accurate way to count, but that is the way it is now.
Change, is it does come, will not come fast. Not in time for the next election for sure. It would take a Constitutional amendment and we know how long that would take. One thing for sure, if there is a discrepancy between the popular vote and electoral college this time around, the movement to change the law will get a lot of momentum.
Comment by susan on 10 September 2008:
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. The winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state) is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All the U.S. Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.” A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Comment by susan on 10 September 2008:
To make every vote in every state politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, support the National Popular Vote bill.
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 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.
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 votes—that 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 National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, 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.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Comment by Gondring on 12 September 2008:
Would it make sense that a team losing 6 out of 7 World Series games should be the champion, if they got a lot of runs in the one game they won? No.
While it might seem counter-intuitive to most people, the Electoral College gives each individual voter MORE power. In fact, it has been rigorously proven (that is, via a mathematical proof). I recommend “Math Against Tyranny,” by Will Hively. This article is so important that Discover Magazine has allowed free access to it: http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny
Comment by Gondring on 12 September 2008:
One thing that would help the Electoral College would be to split up California into North and South, but to proportionally assign electors would lead to the type of mess the Democrat Party leadership got themselves into in this primary season.
Comment by Ken Bailie on 12 September 2008:
the answer to the title question is neither.
Comment by Von on 13 September 2008:
It is so interesting that Republicans don’t argue the point. It seems to be the Democrats. They favor whichever way gets their candidate in office. In 2000 it was they wanted popular vote. Now with the popularity of McCain Palin they change their stance. It just doesn’t work in a republic like the US that rules be changed by the loser after the game is played.
Comment by Mike Sheppard on 25 September 2008:
Because of the way the electoral and popular votes interact with each other there have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different.
https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html
Comment by Floyd Lemley on 5 November 2008:
In days gone by when it took forever to count the votes and total and verify/validate them, it made perfect sense to do the Presidential election by electoral college. TODAY on the otherhand is a different story!! We should have done away with the electoral college decades ago!! It is rediculous in this day and time for an essentially flawed system to rule when the popular vote can be tallied in a matter of a day, two or three, tops.
Comment by ipad cover on 16 February 2011:
Nice topic and post, as we were just talking about what things can happen in the medicine industry.
Comment by Nike Air Max pas cher on 16 February 2011:
Thanks for taking this opportunity to discuss this, I feel fervently about this and I like learning about this subject.
Comment by nike air max skyline on 17 February 2011:
Please post more of this. I largely enjoyed it.
Comment by lisseur ghd on 19 July 2011:
You have done a marvellous job!
Comment by Longchamp Bags on 19 July 2011:
It is indeed wonderful to read your article. I appreciate your style.
Comment by Sac Longchamp on 19 July 2011:
I am a blog beginner. I am also interested in such kind information. You provide me a good example. Thanks very much. I will keep on reading your blogs.
Comment by oakley sunglasses cheap on 20 August 2011:
This is a great blog,I like this post it is very good and informative. I am sure that this post will be very much helpful for people.
Comment by cheap rolex watches on 21 August 2011:
It is really a nice post, it is always great reading such posts, this post is good in regards of both knowledge as well as information. Very fascinating read, thanks for sharing this post here.
Comment by evening handbag on 8 September 2011:
We are manufacturer offer leather wallets.evening handbags.keychains.bracelets, on-schedule delivery and competitive prices.If you are interested in any of our models,or have a custom requirement of the bag,please communicate with us in your detailed inquiries.Custom bag designs, size, color, and logo are accepted.We welcome OEM&ODM projects.We accepted small quantity order.