Well actually this is more of a general question about the system...


If Al Gore won the popular vote, why did the EC appoint Bush instead? Or rather, what factors other than the popular vote influence their decision?

Each of the 50 states gets one elector for each Senate seat (two per state) and each House seat (anywhere from one to a few dozen depending on population). DC gets three. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in each state wins all the electoral votes for that state.

A very small state gets three electors. Two for their Senate seats, one for their House seat. Because their population only merits a single elector, the two Senate freebies make that state's voting power in the electoral college disproportionately large when compared to their percentage of the total popular vote.

That's the short of it. In the 2000 election, essentially all the electors voted according the popular votes of their states (an elector from DC abstained to protest the district's lack of congressional representation). Because small states have disproportionate representation in the EC, the popular vote didn't match the EC's vote.

I have a question to all those who are upset about Bush having won the 2000 election despite not winning the popular vote. If the reverse had taken place, Gore had won the election while Bush won the popular vote, would you be just as upset? Somehow I dont think we would be hearing the same people complain about how the "Electoral College system was wrong and needs to be scrapped," etc.

Personally, I like the concept of the Electoral College, but I must admit that I haven't read much of the anti-EC rhetoric. Basically, it sounds as if the EC ensures that states as a whole are heard, and that those of us who live in lower populated states aren't ignored. Why should a heavily populated state such as California have more sway than a state like mine (Kentucky)? People who live in cities aren't necessarily more enlightened voters than those who live in rural areas. In other words, theoretically, just because most people believe something, doesn't make it right. For the issues of everyone to be considered, we must have a system similar to the Electoral College. Issues considered to be of importance in rural areas may be quite different than those of highly populated areas. For instance, issues involving agriculture may be very important to people from rural areas, while people from heavily populated areas may not quite grasp the issues. Pollution may be a huge issue with people who live in highly populated areas, while people in rural areas who have much less pollution may not care so much about the issue. These may not be great examples, but there's no denying the concept behind them.

Personally, I'm going to read more into the issues, as it is likely to be an important debate, in the future, both politically, and philisophically.

I agree 100%.

I would be upset that Bush had won the popular vote.

Hahaha.

If each state has an equal say, then individuals living in a low population state have more of a say than individuals living in a high population state.


The point of a democracy is that every individual has an equal vote, not every state. America is one country, not fifty little countries.

This sort of system would only work if each state had approximately the same population. If one state has twice the number of people as another state, it only makes sense for that state to have twice the vote.

And this sort of system doesn't really do anything for the whole "majority oppressing the minority" problem.
And anyway, 'majority oppressing minority' is democracy.
I'm there's a good 0.01% or so of Americans that'd want America to be Nazi and deport all immigrants. They are a minority, they don't have much power because they only make up 0.01%. I don't understand the whole "protecting minorities" business. 99.99% of Americans do not want America to be Nazi, and so America isn't Nazi. Should American Nazis be protected, should they have an equal say, equal power with the other 99.99%?
Of course not. The reason they don't have power is because they are a minority.

If there's three people in a group, and two people want to do something, and one doesn't, then you'll end up doing what the two people want to do. Sucks to be the other guy, but that's the sensible way to do it. You either have one unhappy guy, and two happy guys, or two unhappy guys and one happy guy. There isn't much of a choice.


The whole 'limiting democracy' concept is basically done by the Constitution, and if you're going to put limits on democracy then that's the way to do it. The idea of the Electorate College, of giving states an equal say regardless of their population, that isn't how you go about doing that.

Actually, America is supposed to be a union of seperate, self-governing states. All states don't have an equal say in our electoral system. Ictus explained it perfectly. And Flexor's comment was classic!

I can understand the dems crying foul, since the Florida issue was decided for Bush, and Florida's governor is Bush's brother,

but winning his own home state would have helped Gore too.

There is still an element of sectionalism that people in other countries never seem to be able to comprehend.

What people in NY consider important national issues might not be such a big deal in Louisiana, for instance. What people in Northern states consider unimportant might greatly affect the people in Southern states.

The north may have the majority but why are they deciding such an issue, essentially by themselves and for people whose problems and concerns they don't, and couldn't understand?

I wasn't referring to individuals. I was referring to states as a whole. I believe that the states should have an equal say. If they do, great. If they don't, they should. Sadly, I'm not quite sure, and will be too busy to look into the matter for a bit.



Your vote is equal to that of everyone else in your state. It seems to me that thinking that a vote from a citizen of California in regards to the issues of Kentucky (issues not necessarily important in California), would be almost as bad as a Kentuckian voting for governor in California. It simply doesn't make sense.



It works now, and has for quite some time. You may argue that it doesn't work how you would like it to, but it does work. I disagree with the second sentence for reasons stated in my initial post.



It seems to do quite a bit actually. Theoretically, one can win the popular vote and still lose. Therefore what you're saying doesn't make sense.



If they were the majority of votes in a state, then yes, the votes from that state should be equal to that of votes from other states.



Your example doesn't relate to the subject, whatsoever. Our country is divided into states. These states should have equal voting power, despite their population, due to the reasons stated in my initial post. If 2/3 of the people of a state, however, vote for a certain candidate, their vote should then override the vote of the other 1/3. Is this not how it works now.

Excuse me if I have misrepresented the Electoral College. This is far from my area of expertise. I simply see it being unfair if my states vote doesn't count as much as someone elses, based on population statistics. The majority can be wrong, and often are.

I think you're off because you seem to be assuming that states have equal say. They do not. Population is indirectly responsible for the number of electors each state has. I used to think each state should get one vote to cast for the winner but that is highly flawed as a state with millions would have identical say as a state with thousands. Democrats would also hate my flawed system is that would pretty much make the election a landslide victory for Republicans as they tend to win most states.

I learned alot about the electoral college from the last presidential election. I thought it was flawed prior to the election but learned the importance of it as a result. It appears that most people who fail to see this only do so because Gore lost. My opinion of the electoral college would be the same as it is now, even if Kerry ended up winning this time like Bush did last time.

I withdraw all statements that I've made referring to the Electoral College. I will now retreat from the world of politics, back into the world of watching this Moby concert on Trio.

It hinged on Florida. They never found out who would have won the Florida votes because the Supreme Court (who is mostly conservative), forced the recounts to be stopped and appointed Bush.

There's already some bad stuff going on in Florida. Government people who work under Jeb have been intimidating black voters over some kind of "absentee vote" thing. A court has said that no crime was done, but these "investigations" continue. They basically go to the homes of elderly people and black people and interrogate them and wave their guns around. It has a lot of people scared.

The supreme court stopped the recounts because the law didn't allow for recounts. Florida was, in a sense, making up laws to do the recount itself.

Oooh, you got me there for now. I shall investigate.

http://election2000.stanford.edu/

The page has links to the Sumpreme Court decisions. It's a lot of info, but they are informative

It looks like you are wrong, Avenger: http://www.flcourts.org/pubinfo/election/12-22-2000/SC00-2431-remand.pdf
Recounts are allowed if the votes weren't fairly tabultated. Around p.23 it says that. Recounts are allowed if the votes haven't been counted correcly, which is what happened with the undervotes, which weren't counted.

The Supreme Court's Decision:

The reason that the supreme court gave didn't have anything to do with recounts being illegal, they said they couldn't count the votes because it would violate the equal rights, just because of different standards of counting between different counties.
So in other words, because different counties have different methods of determining how to judge a ballot, there are not all treated fairly, but to not count them at all is fair.
That's rubbish.

Part of the reason is that the recounts could also not meet the deadline. The reason why though, is that they were constantly being stopped. The first link gives many reasons why by Florida law the deadline should not count.

The computer recount was fine, but it was the "hanging chad" and "dimpled chad" that they had no authority to count

Corruption. Misrepresentation. There is no other possible answer, because the popular vote is the actual measure of the will of the people, and it is clear that the EC is not carrying out that will. And DSettahr, that's absolutley silly. I am mad because the guy who won... well... lost. If Bush got the popular vote, but Gore became predient, I'd be just as pissed, because it's WRONG. It doesn't represent the people and needs to be thrown out.

First off, I agree with you. But to present the opposing view..

Look at the number of people in California. Now look at the number of people in Rhode Island. Should the say of Rhode Island, which only represents a small number of people, have the same weight as the people in California, which has an extremely large amount of people in it?

I think so. Whether or not this is the way the system currently works, I think it should be this way. It seems to all come down to compromise. You want everyone's vote to really matter, yet you also want to allow the people of certain states to vote based on the issues relative to them. It seems to me that the current system makes a better compromise than if we were to go to a system based only on popular vote. The USA is divided into states, and it seems unfair to me, to virtually ignore some states, due to a lower population. Their concerns and point of view should be taken into account, and theoretically, they may not, in a system based solely on popular votes.

...

The total concern of a state on any given issue is proportional to its population. If Wyoming has 500,000 people, while California has 20 million, then California should be taken 40 times as seriously as Wyoming. Don't you understand why? BECAUSE 40 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE LIVE THERE.

It's not fair to make some peoples' votes worth more than others, which is what the EC does. Everyone's votes should comprise 1/nth of the decisions, where n is the number of people who vote.

But it's not wrong given the electoral college system.

Actually it is, due to the votes obtained from the senate. Wyoming gets 3 votes. 2 of those come from the senate, and one comes from the house. California gets what, like 30-something votes. 2 of those come from the senate. Who's getting the better deal from the required senate pity votes?

The smaller can end up getting more votes per population than bigger states because they have to have 3. And because elctoral votes are based on population, no one is getting screwed over. If California, which has 54 votes and the largest population in the US, had the same number of votes as a state with 1/20th it's population, the election would be less represntitive than the elctoral system is.

I really don't like the idea that the election would be based solely on the votes of people, some of which were bribed in some way to vote for a certain candidate.

...I think maybe you mean something else? If not the votes of people, then the votes of what?

But if you mean what I think you mean, then that's faulty reasoning. The people might be bribed does not equal that the people *are* bribed so we shouldn't do it.

The key to understanding the EC is that America is not a direct democracy. Don't forget that the real name of this country is the United States of America, and at least before the Civil War, it was "the US are", "not the US is". The idea is that states are important unto themselves, and it's not the people who elect the federal executive but the states. Hell, for a while, the state senates chose the federal senators, but that was changed in the 20's I think.

It's not fair to make the votes of one state count more than another, either. As I stated before, it comes down to compromise. While you say one thing isn't fair, I say another isn't, and both are valid points, whether you agree or not. I still stand by my previous post. Each state, regardless of its population, should be equal in this matter. People from California shouldn't have more sway in issues that relate to Kentucky, than people in Kentucky, and if we had a system based solely on popular vote, this may very well be a reality.

To give the states equal voting power would only scew the system even more, which you are arguing against.

I'm open to that possibility, but I'm not quite grasping how. I'm not exactly defending the current system (I don't know enough about it to do so), I'm simply stating what I see as a fair system.

er...I mean solely on popular vote.