Thoughts on the popular vote vs. Electoral College

[MARIS61]

And as I've pointed out a few times, the electoral college scheme means the winner wins by an absolute majority. Consider the 2000 election again, Gore v. Bush. Gore won the popular vote by a plurality of 48.38%, yet 51.62% (a majority) didn't want him.

You add no credibility to your dubious arguement by citing what is widely known to be a fraudulently contrived election result.

 

[Denny Crane]

You add no credibility to your dubious arguement by citing what is widely known to be a fraudulently contrived election result.

Clinton won in 1992, yet 57% of the voters didn't want him. More than 50% didn't want him again in 1996.

Happy now?

 

[barfo]

The reasons for holding an indirect election for president are many, though on this specific question I would answer that the current scheme provides for a more independent office of the president. No matter how big one state's population might be, and how wildly popular a candidate might be in that state, it's nowhere near enough to win an electoral college election.

Nor would that be the case if one was using the popular vote. Take CA, for example. 10% of the electoral votes, 12% of the population. Neither number is big enough to win the election.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Clinton won in 1992, yet 57% of the voters didn't want him. More than 50% didn't want him again in 1996.

Happy now?

I'm always happy. It's a wonderful life here in Beautiful Central Oregon.

You are misquoting what those numbers mean.

There is no way to express by voting that you don't want a Presidential candidate, because they run as a team. Maybe they wanted Clinton, but couldn't stand Gore? I would never vote for anyone who had Lieberman as a VP. Doesn't mean they wouldn't still be my first choice for President.

 

[MARIS61]

Nixon beat Humphrey in 1968 with less than 50%, as I said. If a 50%+1 were required, maybe George Wallace would have gone back to his Democratic Party roots and threw his votes behind Humphrey. If Wallace's voters did as he asked htem, then yeah, it'd be a coalition of we voters.

Except that in a popular vote system, George would only have 1 vote, like you or I.

Clinton didn't get a majority either time. Nixon didn't the first time. JFK didn't.

So some sort of coalition to get to 50%+1 would have been needed. That's 4 of the past 10 elections, and 2 more were barely 50% (Carter 50.08%, for one).

No it wouldn't. Popular vote means exactly that. Whomever gets the most votes, with no other strings attached.

For a Libertarian you certainly seem to have control and trust issues.

 

[MARIS61]

270 electoral votes is 50% +1 support.

Clinton with his 43% couldn't claim a mandate and people could say 57% voted against him. Yet his 370 electoral votes were considerable

Electoral votes aren't votes at all and don't usually represent the will of the people. They are flexible seats of power to be bought and sold to the highest bidder and were created to keep the common man from true self-government.

 

[MARIS61]

Do you want barfo to use smaller words? Or me to use smaller words?

Though for barfo's benefit, smaller words don't do much for me.

I have no problem understanding barfo's posts, and I have no trouble reading yours. It's just that yours don't illustrate any relevant arguement or evidence.

 

[Minstrel]

And we don't have a popular vote for congress. Otherwise I could vote against Pelosi and Reid and Kerry.

We don't have national popular votes for members of Congress. We do, however, have popular votes for members of Congress. The voting population doesn't have to be the whole nation (or the whole world) for the vote to be a popular vote.

 

[maxiep]

Really? I sure don't. Wikipedia doesn't either - not that that necessarily proves anything, but I can't find a better source at the moment.

barfo

My mistake. I thought then-Senator Obama had visited all 57 states.

 

[huevonkiller]

Florida is the God state of the electoral college, so keep it please.