Nader stole the election!

[Soul Taker]

Here are some statistics for you jerks.
Nader one 1% in every state. 50 * 1% = 50%. Nader won 50% of the popular vote.

So if someone wins 50% in every state, they win 2500% of the popular vote?

[Mephisto]

I think the electorial college needs to go because it's likely that the states that were won/lost by the liberals/conservatives are likely to be close to that for along time.  If we abolished the system and went by the popular vote (like every other vote we have in America) it would be true democrocy, and people's votes in states where their vote would be largely opposed would actually count.  The only time I see the popular vote being of any value would be if the electorial votes were a 269 to 269 tie where the House would be under pressure to go with the winning candidate regardless if the majoritie's candidate lost.

[Kp]

I think the electorial college needs to go because it's likely that the states that were won/lost by the liberals/conservatives are likely to be close to that for along time.  If we abolished the system and went by the popular vote (like every other vote we have in America) it would be true democrocy, and people's votes in states where their vote would be largely opposed would actually count.  The only time I see the popular vote being of any value would be if the electorial votes were a 269 to 269 tie where the House would be under pressure to go with the winning candidate regardless if the majoritie's candidate lost.

Keep in mind the reason that the electoral college was originally implemented.  The founders didn't trust that the people would be smart enough to figure out who to elect president, so the job was placed in the hands of the electoral college.  The college also serves as a buffer - consider some of the states on the east coast that (due to small size) have small populations.  In a pure popular vote system, the whole of those small states can be easily overshadowed just by winning one big state farther west.  So, Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California would count in your proposal, but nobody in Rhode Island (for example) would count because the "extra" votes in large states (that is, the people whose votes counted for the points in excess of 50% for the winner) could overshadow them.  The bicameral legislative branch is the closest solution we have to hybridizing the desire for a popular-driven vote with the necessity that small states not be overwhelmed by larger ones.  In the Senate, even the tiniest of states has just as much voice as California and other large states.

[Adron]

Keep in mind the reason that the electoral college was originally implemented.  The founders didn't trust that the people would be smart enough to figure out who to elect president, so the job was placed in the hands of the electoral college.

I think this is a good point. I spent some time reading about American history, and the federalist papers. The way the voting system currently works in America is about as far away from their intentions as you can get.

The presidential candidates are making a spectacle of themselves, trying to appeal to voters who aren't smart enough to make qualified judgement. They're throwing mud at each other. And they never focus on important qualities for leading the country.

The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew about the election campaigns of today.

[Stealth]

This Slashdot comment struck me as an absolutely genius defense of the Electoral College system.

[Grok]

Here are some statistics for you jerks.
Nader one 1% in every state. 50 * 1% = 50%. Nader won 50% of the popular vote.

Lies.  Nader wasn't even on the ticket in every state.

[Falcon[anti-yL]]

Yea, Nader wasn't on the ballots in Texas. I don't see the point of the electorial college anymore since people nowadays are generally better educated and can learn about the candidates through TV or other ways, unlike 200 years ago.

[hismajesty]

people nowadays are generally better educated

Hah!


Seriously:
It's for state size reasons as well.

[Thing]

Here is a very good paper describing the history of the Electoral College.  It also points of some of the pros and cons of the system.

[Hazard]

The fact is, the electoral college has performed as it was intended to. The electoral college is the great equalizer.

[Mephisto]

One major flaw in the electorial college system is that it generally gives the point of voting for some people no meaning.  For instance, California & New York are both largely democratic states, and someone's vote for republican will not prevent the state from voting democratic and giving the electorial votes to that candidate.  Same for in the south, a liberals vote for the democratic ballot is not going to stop that state from voting republican.  Only in cases where one candidate is obviously better than the other regardless of political party where this may not apply.  But for close elections like the 2000 & 2004, it does.  Perhaps it would be better if the electorial college split the votes based on the popular vote per state.  California has 55 votes, if roughly 48% or so voted for Bush and 50% Kerry, then 30 should go to Kerry and 25 Bush.  Just my little input on the electorial college's fairness level. 

[quasi-modo]

Here are some statistics for you jerks.
Nader one 1% in every state. 50 * 1% = 50%. Nader won 50% of the popular vote.

So if someone wins 50% in every state, they win 2500% of the popular vote?

SHUTUP, YOU ARE WRONG. LEAVE NOW! 

[Adron]

The fact is, the electoral college has performed as it was intended to. The electoral college is the great equalizer.

Ah, but has it? The electoral college was intended to be allowed to choose a president. The intention was that wise men from each state be selected, and these would then themselves investigate the presidential candidates, and give their votes.

They wanted a group of intelligent people to choose the president, so that there would be no risk of the election devolving into what it is today.

[quasi-modo]

The fact is, the electoral college has performed as it was intended to. The electoral college is the great equalizer.

Ah, but has it? The electoral college was intended to be allowed to choose a president. The intention was that wise men from each state be selected, and these would then themselves investigate the presidential candidates, and give their votes.

They wanted a group of intelligent people to choose the president, so that there would be no risk of the election devolving into what it is today.

The reason behind electoral college was that the representation from each state can be modified. It keeps the populated states from ruling over the unpopulated. Without it California and The northeast would rule over the rest of the country and try to get a lot of pork thrown their way... meanwhille the other states are getting shafted.

[Adron]

The reason behind electoral college was that the representation from each state can be modified. It keeps the populated states from ruling over the unpopulated. Without it California and The northeast would rule over the rest of the country and try to get a lot of pork thrown their way... meanwhille the other states are getting shafted.

What is the source for that idea? Isn't that just an interpretation made in recent days to justify the way the electoral college is currently being misused?

Quote from old times here:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Short interpretation:

#1: The people should choose the ones to trust with making the decision (not knowing beforehand what the decision that person will make is)

#2: The electors should be clever; able to analyze the qualities required to be president, investigate the candidates, and be given the opportunity to carefully consider who is the right person to lead. (note: supposed to judge the appropriate qualities; not being lead into looking at all the stupid arguments brought up in recent elections, and not be affected by all the mud-slinging)

#3: The people should absolutely not be allowed to directly choose the one president, because that might lead to conflicts and disorder. (as is happening between republicans and democrats in todays America)