For those of you who have stated that you're against the Electoral College and for a system based solely on the popular vote, do you still feel this way, even after Bush won the popular vote?

This isn't intended to be a debate thread, I'm just curious to find out if this was a matter of principle, or a matter of just being pissed that Gore lost in 2000.

If someone gets more votes than the other person, and they don't win, the system doesn't work.

Yes. Bush won fair and square, but I'd still have preferred a popular vote.

The electoral college is there for a reason. America is a federal republic with a strong democratic tradition. It is a union of states. Each state deserves the ability to cast a vote for whom they feel fit to represent and lead them and have their vote mean something. It wouldn't work if three cities canceled out the votes of four or five entire states.

It's only ever an issue if the election is close, like the last two have been, in terms of electoral votes. The system as it is disenfranchises people's votes to some extent based on their political beliefs rather than living in a populous vs. non populous state.

If it were popular vote, the presidents would would just appeal to the needs of the largest states. This way they have to please every one.

You are the first person to justify the electoral college system without any bull****.

If you operate under the assumption that states' rights are more important than the rights of the individual, then your justification is sound.. but if you believe that America (and the vote) is for and by the people, then there is no reason against just using the popular vote. I admit that I'm curious as to why one would be so concerned more about the equality of the states than the equality of the people themselves.

States rights has been the cause of some bitter fights over the years, plus it's in the Constitution.

Jipe, I think you misunderstand. The electoral college was created because the States Rights were deemed more important than the rights of the country as a whole. When America first became a country, the States had a lot more power to govern themselves than they do now. The Civil War was a direct result of the Government trying to assume more control over the States, and many of the States resisting this.

Because an individual in New York City has no idea what the needs are of the people in my state. The U.S. has such a diverse population and landscape that regions must be recognized.

Good point. The majority of the population of the State of New York is in New York City, yet the biggest industry in the state is Agriculture.

Excellent thread! I was thinking about this over the last couple days because we know many here dislike the electoral college. Some mentioned here that Kerry conceded too early. We know he was behind by several million but if he pulled out Ohio he could have lost by over three million votes, still have won, and Kerry supporters here would have been happy. Ironic?

I'll go with the popular vote because it just makes more sense. if we are counting up the votes any way why use electoral. i think with the popular vote people have thier vote counted more.

But you're overlooking the fact that there are many states similar to your state and opposite to New York City - when we're talking about a presidential election where there are two candidates, many states in the same region will vote the same way. Thus, if we switched to the popular vote, every person would have their say and one big city would not cancel out a single state because there is no single state's view, but a general view of a group of states (ie, the regions that you say must be recognized).

For example, Wyoming will not be overpowered by Los Angeles or Chicago or New York City because it shares common views with Colorado, and Montana, and North & South Dakota, etc., and together they balance each other out. Just look at the results for the election - a good number of the states were very close. How can you support a system that gives every single vote from a state to one side or the other when the state was almost evenly divided? How is that in the state's best interest?

N.Y.C.: 8,008,278
L.A.: 3,694,820
Chicago: 2,896,016
Houston: 1,953,631
Philadelphia: 1,517,550

Alaska: 648,818
N. Dakota: 642,200
S. Dakota: 754,844
Wyoming: 493,782
Delaware: 817,491

If those states voted one way, and those cities voted another, the states' votes would go unheard.

I do feel that George W. Bush now actually holds legitimacy in his office, now that he's not just recieved a plurality, but a majority, of the popular vote. I recognised him as an illegitimate president from 2000, becuase he lost the popular vote by a margin similar to the one he won it this election, and even the electoral vote for 2000 was still contested, with him only being 2 electoral votes above failing.

Or course, what's even odder about the electoral college is that, if they don't mind any of the legal consequences they'd recieve, there's no reason why the electors can't simply, say, elect Vermin Supreme as President of the United States when they meet this December. I'm amazed that we haven't seen something as strange like this on a large scale yet; all I've heard about was the W. Virginia Republican elector who's voting for Kerry instead of Bush, making his 274 electoral majority a 273 majority; four others doing the same thing would give Kerry the Presidency, regardless of what the election results were.

But wouldn't it work out the same with both systems when it applied to issues within the same state?



You could have just listed New York City, and it would still negate those 5 states. In any case, however, I believe it should be the will of the people, not the state.

[EDIT: changed last sentence to IT SHOULD BE the will of the people, not the state]

No, the majority of the population of NY does not live in NYC, though a very solid percentage of the state's population does. (just a fact-check, you know)

• Population of NY State: 19,190,115
• Population of NYC: 7,333,253 (38%)
• Population of Buffalo, NY: 312,965 (1.6%)
• Population of Rochester, NY: 231,170 (1.2%)
• Population of Albany, NY: 104,828 (0.5%)
  (Results from Ask Jeeves, taken from US Census 2000)

What's the population of NYC and Long Island? I bet it's well over half of NY's population.

So, based on this system, millions of peoples votes are pretty much invalidated because of what the "majority" of the state voted for?

Please correct me, I'm not to familiar with how your system really works.

Basically, yes.

Wait, correct me if i'm wrong, but surley with this system a persons vote in one of the smaller states carriest more weight than a vote from a person from one of the larger states?

Not really, because larger states like New York and California carry many more electoral votes with them. That's why Kerry was so competitive despite losing the vast majority of the geographic territory to Bush.