Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.No.And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.
In practice electors are not free to vote as they. Some states have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. In the other states, electors are bound by pledges to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. For elector to break their pledge to the party would be political suicide.
U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
It hasn't worked out that way because US voters aren't a homogeneous mixture. Voters are the poor, the wealthy, the middle class, the educated, and the uneducated. Thus the elected representatives represent many different interest.The framers were afraid of a democracy because the poor would vote all the goodies for themselves. It hasn't worked out that way as yet. Big money still rules and using that money is able to convince the lazy poor that the wealthy deserve the money because of their hard work. Perhaps the framer's fears were wrong?
So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?Uh huh, the 2000 Presidential election sure showed us that.
Four times in history, presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. So what? Given that we have had 60 presidential elections, that seems like a pretty good batting average - sure beats the hell out of area voting.
Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).
Actually Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district with the PV winner getting the other 2. I would like to see all states go to this method, electors would be more representative of the electorate because large cities couldn't determine all the electors for that State.
That would be the most democratic way to do it.
Whether there is need for it is certainly a matter of opinion.. However, abolishing it is almost impossible. Either an amendment or a Constitutional Convention would not replace the electoral college with a popular vote because it would be blocked by the smaller less populous states. 15 of the smallest states would clearly be a blocking coalition. All of them would lose power in deciding the presidency if the electoral college were eliminated. So why waste the time promoting a change that is just not going to happen?The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.No.
In practice electors are not free to vote as they. Some states have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. In the other states, electors are bound by pledges to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. For elector to break their pledge to the party would be political suicide.
U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, I understand all that. I question the need for an electoral college. I also wonder why the selection of electors is not a more democratic process. Surely the method for selecting electors is not specified in the Constitution as well. Perhaps we can know who these people are.
Wierd indeed! That's the philosophy of the Lib.dem. if the majority thinks it's great, then it must be.Let's all eat shit. 50 million flies can't be wrong.That Elector would come up dead if he voted for anybody other than the one who won the popular vote IN THAT STATE.Yes, but the electoral college does not have to follow the popular vote.....
Correct.
Bingo, we have a winner.
There is absolutely no directive in the US Constitution where it is written that the electors of any given state must cast their elector-ballots based on the popular vote results of their state. But the tradition, a good one, I might add, has been so strong since it started in part of the country in 1824, that I doubt that any state would ever try to go against it.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.
Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"
Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"
Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2
NationalPopularVote.com
Well, that was weird.
If the poor voted as a body the government would belong to them, but they don't. Wonder why they don't? That was indeed a fear of the framers and they allowed the citizens to vote for only one government body, the House, and even there the states usually attached a property requirement on the voter.It hasn't worked out that way because US voters aren't a homogeneous mixture. Voters are the poor, the wealthy, the middle class, the educated, and the uneducated. Thus the elected representatives represent many different interest.The framers were afraid of a democracy because the poor would vote all the goodies for themselves. It hasn't worked out that way as yet. Big money still rules and using that money is able to convince the lazy poor that the wealthy deserve the money because of their hard work. Perhaps the framer's fears were wrong?
A democratic republic is a reflection of the people. It the people are mostly poor, uneducated, easily mislead, their government is likely to be corrupt, tyrannical.
The poor in the US don't vote as a block because they are not a homogeneous group. The poor in the US is composed of many different races, ethnics groups, and religions. They also vary widely in there educational level, family status, and age. In other words, the poor like other economic groups make their voting decisions based on a number factors,, not just their income.If the poor voted as a body the government would belong to them, but they don't. Wonder why they don't? That was indeed a fear of the framers and they allowed the citizens to vote for only one government body, the House, and even there the states usually attached a property requirement on the voter.It hasn't worked out that way because US voters aren't a homogeneous mixture. Voters are the poor, the wealthy, the middle class, the educated, and the uneducated. Thus the elected representatives represent many different interest.The framers were afraid of a democracy because the poor would vote all the goodies for themselves. It hasn't worked out that way as yet. Big money still rules and using that money is able to convince the lazy poor that the wealthy deserve the money because of their hard work. Perhaps the framer's fears were wrong?
A democratic republic is a reflection of the people. It the people are mostly poor, uneducated, easily mislead, their government is likely to be corrupt, tyrannical.
Why waste any time at all on this forum.Whether there is need for it is certainly a matter of opinion.. However, abolishing it is almost impossible. Either an amendment or a Constitutional Convention would not replace the electoral college with a popular vote because it would be blocked by the smaller less populous states. 15 of the smallest states would clearly be a blocking coalition. All of them would lose power in deciding the presidency if the electoral college were eliminated. So why waste the time promoting a change that is just not going to happen?The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, I understand all that. I question the need for an electoral college. I also wonder why the selection of electors is not a more democratic process. Surely the method for selecting electors is not specified in the Constitution as well. Perhaps we can know who these people are.
So then you obviously know who your elector is......right?Now you're apparently only left with silly, nonsensical answers.......rendering the popular vote completely irrelevant, since the electoral college decides the outcome.Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).
Nonsense.
The outcome is decided long before the EVs are cast
Better that than to be left hopelessly ignorant of the electoral process as you are.
All those questions obviously answer themselves, don't they. And they're just as obviously contrived to create the perception of real questions, aren't they. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be twice as smart as I think you are.No, you're wrong again, and about so many things too. Elections are all about competing answers to the same contrived questions.Well of course campaign dollars are the most important thing about elections.It seems as though the loss of WTA would steer dollars out of rural America
I bet you have a good laugh at those who think elections are about determining policy direction.
Poor choice of words on my part.
Elections are not about competing answers to the same question; they are about the questions getting asked themselves. That is simply the truth in the current polticial system. If you question someone's integrity, you vote for the other gal/guy. In any binary system, you end up with this sort of relationship.
What I should have said was that if you want the rural areas to matter, getting rid of WTA may not be the best way to address it.
Did anyone ask about Obama's tax returns in 2012 dumb dumb? No. They asked about Romney's. Did anyone ask about McCain's birth certificate? No. They asked about Obama's. Did anyone seriously question Bush's patriotism in 2004? No but they questioned Kerry's eventhough Bush was partying in Alabama during the war and Kerry was in-country.
You seriously have zero idea what you're talking about.
Why waste any time at all on this forum.Whether there is need for it is certainly a matter of opinion.. However, abolishing it is almost impossible. Either an amendment or a Constitutional Convention would not replace the electoral college with a popular vote because it would be blocked by the smaller less populous states. 15 of the smallest states would clearly be a blocking coalition. All of them would lose power in deciding the presidency if the electoral college were eliminated. So why waste the time promoting a change that is just not going to happen?The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, I understand all that. I question the need for an electoral college. I also wonder why the selection of electors is not a more democratic process. Surely the method for selecting electors is not specified in the Constitution as well. Perhaps we can know who these people are.
A made man? Are you kidding? Do you mean to say you actually take yourself seriously? You apparently have very modest expectations for yourself.All those questions obviously answer themselves, don't they. And they're just as obviously contrived to create the perception of real questions, aren't they. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be twice as smart as I think you are.No, you're wrong again, and about so many things too. Elections are all about competing answers to the same contrived questions.Well of course campaign dollars are the most important thing about elections.
I bet you have a good laugh at those who think elections are about determining policy direction.
Poor choice of words on my part.
Elections are not about competing answers to the same question; they are about the questions getting asked themselves. That is simply the truth in the current polticial system. If you question someone's integrity, you vote for the other gal/guy. In any binary system, you end up with this sort of relationship.
What I should have said was that if you want the rural areas to matter, getting rid of WTA may not be the best way to address it.
Did anyone ask about Obama's tax returns in 2012 dumb dumb? No. They asked about Romney's. Did anyone ask about McCain's birth certificate? No. They asked about Obama's. Did anyone seriously question Bush's patriotism in 2004? No but they questioned Kerry's eventhough Bush was partying in Alabama during the war and Kerry was in-country.
You seriously have zero idea what you're talking about.
Well, I'll just have to settle for being 10 times as smart as you think you are. I can trade you insult for insult all day long loser-boy. I'm a "made man" in this forum and you're a nobody.
As political science 101, what those questions do is suck oxygen away from what the target would rather be talking about. Romney's tax returns were the subject despite his insistance that it wasn't. Obama did the smart thing and didn't take the bait and eventually the tying of McCain to Bush became the issue; so much so that McCain basically had to cry about how effective the tactic was in their 3rd debate.
No, your time isn't of any value at all. If it was you'd put it to good use.Why waste any time at all on this forum.Whether there is need for it is certainly a matter of opinion.. However, abolishing it is almost impossible. Either an amendment or a Constitutional Convention would not replace the electoral college with a popular vote because it would be blocked by the smaller less populous states. 15 of the smallest states would clearly be a blocking coalition. All of them would lose power in deciding the presidency if the electoral college were eliminated. So why waste the time promoting a change that is just not going to happen?The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, I understand all that. I question the need for an electoral college. I also wonder why the selection of electors is not a more democratic process. Surely the method for selecting electors is not specified in the Constitution as well. Perhaps we can know who these people are.
You're time isn't valuable.
Ours is.
The door is over there...feel free to make full use of it.
A made man? Are you kidding? Do you mean to say you actually take yourself seriously? You apparently have very modest expectations for yourself.All those questions obviously answer themselves, don't they. And they're just as obviously contrived to create the perception of real questions, aren't they. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be twice as smart as I think you are.No, you're wrong again, and about so many things too. Elections are all about competing answers to the same contrived questions.Poor choice of words on my part.
Elections are not about competing answers to the same question; they are about the questions getting asked themselves. That is simply the truth in the current polticial system. If you question someone's integrity, you vote for the other gal/guy. In any binary system, you end up with this sort of relationship.
What I should have said was that if you want the rural areas to matter, getting rid of WTA may not be the best way to address it.
Did anyone ask about Obama's tax returns in 2012 dumb dumb? No. They asked about Romney's. Did anyone ask about McCain's birth certificate? No. They asked about Obama's. Did anyone seriously question Bush's patriotism in 2004? No but they questioned Kerry's eventhough Bush was partying in Alabama during the war and Kerry was in-country.
You seriously have zero idea what you're talking about.
Well, I'll just have to settle for being 10 times as smart as you think you are. I can trade you insult for insult all day long loser-boy. I'm a "made man" in this forum and you're a nobody.
As political science 101, what those questions do is suck oxygen away from what the target would rather be talking about. Romney's tax returns were the subject despite his insistance that it wasn't. Obama did the smart thing and didn't take the bait and eventually the tying of McCain to Bush became the issue; so much so that McCain basically had to cry about how effective the tactic was in their 3rd debate.
The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.No.And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.
In practice electors are not free to vote as they. Some states have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. In the other states, electors are bound by pledges to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. For elector to break their pledge to the party would be political suicide.
U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Whether there is need for it is certainly a matter of opinion.. However, abolishing it is almost impossible. Either an amendment or a Constitutional Convention would not replace the electoral college with a popular vote because it would be blocked by the smaller less populous states. 15 of the smallest states would clearly be a blocking coalition. All of them would lose power in deciding the presidency if the electoral college were eliminated. So why waste the time promoting a change that is just not going to happen?The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, I understand all that. I question the need for an electoral college. I also wonder why the selection of electors is not a more democratic process. Surely the method for selecting electors is not specified in the Constitution as well. Perhaps we can know who these people are.
So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?Uh huh, the 2000 Presidential election sure showed us that.
Four times in history, presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. So what? Given that we have had 60 presidential elections, that seems like a pretty good batting average - sure beats the hell out of area voting.
Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).
Actually Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district with the PV winner getting the other 2. I would like to see all states go to this method, electors would be more representative of the electorate because large cities couldn't determine all the electors for that State.
That would be the most democratic way to do it.
No, they're not.Whether there is need for it is certainly a matter of opinion.. However, abolishing it is almost impossible. Either an amendment or a Constitutional Convention would not replace the electoral college with a popular vote because it would be blocked by the smaller less populous states. 15 of the smallest states would clearly be a blocking coalition. All of them would lose power in deciding the presidency if the electoral college were eliminated. So why waste the time promoting a change that is just not going to happen?The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, I understand all that. I question the need for an electoral college. I also wonder why the selection of electors is not a more democratic process. Surely the method for selecting electors is not specified in the Constitution as well. Perhaps we can know who these people are.
More and more people are talking about another Constitutional Convention. The small states wouldn't lose much power cause they have next to none now.
Regardless it is an exercise in determining fairness.
So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?Four times in history, presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. So what? Given that we have had 60 presidential elections, that seems like a pretty good batting average - sure beats the hell out of area voting.
Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).
Actually Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district with the PV winner getting the other 2. I would like to see all states go to this method, electors would be more representative of the electorate because large cities couldn't determine all the electors for that State.
That would be the most democratic way to do it.
No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.
For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.
