Comments on: Which is Right? The Popular Vote or the Electoral College?

By: Floyd Lemley

Floyd Lemley — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:51:33 +0000

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.

By: Mike Sheppard

Mike Sheppard — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:28:46 +0000

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

By: Von

Von — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:30:33 +0000

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.

By: Ken Bailie

Ken Bailie — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:20:09 +0000

the answer to the title question is neither.

By: Gondring

Gondring — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:35:01 +0000

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.

By: Gondring

Gondring — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:33:15 +0000

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

By: susan

susan — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:35:23 +0000

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

By: susan

susan — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:33:13 +0000

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