^^^ I guess you don't no the concept of the American electoral system. The US citizen does not vote for president. There isn't any national elections. You vote for the person you want in your state. Then your state represents you through delegates. The national popular vote is something that is tallied by the news media and nowhere else. There are no official records of how many votes a presidents gets nationally. Only state by state.
Gore is not the first person to win the popular vote and lose the presidency. Nixon beat JFK by popular vote, but Didn't become president. Same thing happened to either Grover Cleveland or Garfield.
Actually JFK beat Nixon in the popular vote... about 100k out of 70 million votes, whereas Gore won the 2000 popular vote by something like 500k out of over 100 million cast.
Not to pile on, but while historical examples are nice, it's important to understand the reason for the electoral college system. Clearly, in a federal government, the states of the federation have a strong stake in government, and in the US system at least, are considered equals. So they should have equal representation. But, OTOH, in a constitution ordained and established by "the People of the United States", the people clearly have a stake, and should have equal representation.
In congress, we handled it with a bicameral legislature. In one house, representatives of the people are apportioned by the population of the states. In the other house, senators represent their states. As originally planned, they would represent the people of those states only indirectly. Populism has had its influence, so now all senators are elected by popular vote in their state, and in practice represent the people of that state. But the weighting (per state, not per million people) still gives states equal influence in the Senate.
Now you can't well have 2 presidents, one chosen by the state, and one by the people. So in the electoral college, representation from each state is the sum of the states senators (2), and the state's representatives (dependent on population). The whole point was to _avoid_ a direct popular vote, because that undermines states' interests.
Majority vote gives the people want they want, not what they need.
-Padme (Star Wars - yea, so that was a nerdy reference)
Further more, the Electoral college spreads the process of selecting a leader evenly across all states, large or small.
If we let the l.a., boston, new york, houston and chicago to elect a president, then we would look alot like France and a lot less like America thank you very much.
I like being an American with a leader selected by the whole country thank you.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
RM @ Dec 17th 2007 9:39AM
Bring back the chad! RM - Broward County, FL
required @ Dec 17th 2007 11:54AM
Al Gore won the popular vote. He was the candidate most Americans voted for. Some might even say he was president elect whereas "W" president select.
Just saying.
kjb434 @ Dec 17th 2007 12:16PM
^^^
I guess you don't no the concept of the American electoral system. The US citizen does not vote for president. There isn't any national elections. You vote for the person you want in your state. Then your state represents you through delegates. The national popular vote is something that is tallied by the news media and nowhere else. There are no official records of how many votes a presidents gets nationally. Only state by state.
Gore is not the first person to win the popular vote and lose the presidency. Nixon beat JFK by popular vote, but Didn't become president. Same thing happened to either Grover Cleveland or Garfield.
Rocketboy @ Dec 17th 2007 12:53PM
2 out of 3 methods of recounting say that Gore lost Florida. If you're too stupid to be able to use a punch card, your vote should be thrown out.
John @ Dec 17th 2007 3:44PM
Actually JFK beat Nixon in the popular vote... about 100k out of 70 million votes, whereas Gore won the 2000 popular vote by something like 500k out of over 100 million cast.
Benson @ Dec 17th 2007 7:18PM
Not to pile on, but while historical examples are nice, it's important to understand the reason for the electoral college system.
Clearly, in a federal government, the states of the federation have a strong stake in government, and in the US system at least, are considered equals. So they should have equal representation.
But, OTOH, in a constitution ordained and established by "the People of the United States", the people clearly have a stake, and should have equal representation.
In congress, we handled it with a bicameral legislature. In one house, representatives of the people are apportioned by the population of the states. In the other house, senators represent their states. As originally planned, they would represent the people of those states only indirectly. Populism has had its influence, so now all senators are elected by popular vote in their state, and in practice represent the people of that state. But the weighting (per state, not per million people) still gives states equal influence in the Senate.
Now you can't well have 2 presidents, one chosen by the state, and one by the people. So in the electoral college, representation from each state is the sum of the states senators (2), and the state's representatives (dependent on population). The whole point was to _avoid_ a direct popular vote, because that undermines states' interests.
Erick @ Jan 23rd 2008 6:09PM
@required
Majority vote gives the people want they want, not what they need.
-Padme (Star Wars - yea, so that was a nerdy reference)
Further more, the Electoral college spreads the process of selecting a leader evenly across all states, large or small.
If we let the l.a., boston, new york, houston and chicago to elect a president, then we would look alot like France and a lot less like America thank you very much.
I like being an American with a leader selected by the whole country thank you.