MyFox
 

Northton

by northton from the Land of Free Spe

Last Post 1 day, 6 hours Ago


Is The Electoral Vote Fair?
Nov 5, 2008 | 8:56 PM
Category: Political
Report This Post

Someone mentioned how much different the popular vote and the electoral votes were in the 2008 presidential election, so I thought I would check it out and see what effect this odd system has had on our country's highest office.  Here's what I found.

 

Samuel J. Tilden (Dem) would have beaten Rutherford B. Hayes (Rep) in 1876.

Grover Cleveland (Dem) would have won against Benjamin Harrison (Rep) in 1888.

Al Gore (Dem) would have won against George W. Bush (Rep) in 2000.

As you can see, it is interesting that the electoral system has only worked against Democrats and not  against Republicans.  It doesn't seem fair to the people either.


This info was found at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html<
/p>

If you check it out you will see several elections in which the popular vote and the electoral vote do not match closely.  In 1880 James A. Garfield only won the popular vote by about 7,000 votes, out of over eight million tallied, yet he won the electoral vote by 50 votes!

The electoral system has destroyed the ability of anyone outside of the two major parties to win an election in America.  In 1992 H. Ross Perot received  just under 20 million votes (19% of the total votes), a little over half of the votes received by George H. Bush, and almost half of the votes received by William J. Clinton.  How many electoral votes did H. Ross Perot receive after being voted for by 19,742,267 American citizens?  ZERO!

What do you think?

Is the electoral vote system fair to the American people?

Can any candidate that is not with the two controlling parties ever win a presidential election in this country?

Should we change our current system to a popular vote system?

Why or why not?

8 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 1
Meb452m read my blog
Nov 5, 2008 | 9:43 PM

The electorial college needs to go, period !
snkypete read my blog
Nov 5, 2008 | 10:36 PM

Remember the electorial college was enacted during the same period as the as the blood letting known as the French Revolution.The Founding Fathers were parnoid of mob rule.=
Keep in mind though at this time the guy that got the second amount of votes got the V.P. spot.I think that it has become antiquedated (is that a word?),what the technology.(if they can grt it to work.
Truthguys read my blog view my photos
Nov 6, 2008 | 12:33 AM

anyone who has any knowledge of the Constitution and the workings of the elections should never want the popular vote... it works out most of the time and thank God Al Gore did lose..... what a mess he would have been.

The reason they have the Electoral College, designed by our founders was to give equal vote justice to those in the city or in the fields. If they had popular votes even in the 1800s all the candidates would have to do is campaign in the cities. This is why if you look at the US by countys... it is Red everywhere except the Left coast and NYC and Miami.. As liberal as it is.. even California is mostly red.

It isnt that it is old time stuff, it is stuff that works.... go back to High school civics and History class 101.

Man o man, and you people vote. ahhhhhhhhhhhh
northton read my blog view my photos
Nov 6, 2008 | 6:41 AM

Are you kidding me truthnuts?

What does campaigning have to do with anything? If people are going to vote, then they are going to vote.

We all get news in our homes on TV and most on our computers as well. It doesn't matter whether a candidate shows up my town or not.

Every person's vote should count equally.
northton read my blog view my photos
Nov 6, 2008 | 6:45 AM

Please explain to me how my vote is worth any less in Orlando, FL than it is in Webster, FL?
northton read my blog view my photos
Nov 6, 2008 | 6:54 AM

I just gave you an example of how TWENTY MILLION voters had their votes stolen from them and given to another candidate! How can you even imagine that that's okay?
didaskalos read my blog
Nov 6, 2008 | 6:07 PM

For me, the bottom line is that the Constitution should be rarely and carefully ammended. I was reading it today and the last ammendment (1933) was repealing an earlier ammendment of prohibition.

To imply that our vote doesn't really count because of the Electoral College system established by the Constitution also implies that no individual's vote has EVER counted in the history of our country.

We are a representative democracy or republic. The Electoral College is just an extension of that system was use and readily accept to establish the laws of the land.
northton read my blog view my photos
Nov 7, 2008 | 5:22 AM

" implies that no individual's vote has EVER counted in the history of our country"

Yep, that's the implication.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




northton

I like sharing ideas and ideals in an open forum. I may not like what you have to say but you can still say it here. Whatever you think, join the blog! Come and debate on an open forum like mine where free speech cannot be denied!* *Except by TOS, applicable copyright laws, and the whims of FOX.

Member Since: 1/23/2007


 

View All Photos


RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?