Actually Spirit, it's happened four times in American history.
1824, Adams V. Jackson
1876, Hayes V. Tilden
1888, Harrison V. Cleveland
2000, Gore V. Bush
I stand corrected. Four times, that makes it even worse.
I'm Australian, I didn't understand the logic of the EC system and said so. I was promptly told it was so the less populated states got a fair say, I still don't understand the logic. If a candidate was to concentrate their efforts on only the most populated states (11), they are going to win the election regardless of whether it's the popular vote system or the EC system. In fact, under the EC system, because most states have a "winner take all" a candidate has more of a chance by putting all their efforts into just the most populated states.
I had any idea, a candidate must win the popular vote in 26 states to become the next president. If it comes down to 25 states each, then the winner of the overall popular vote would win.
What do you think????
The whole reason they started the Electoral College was because the representatives from the small states were worried about how much say they would get in the country when the country was just starting out. The founding fathers were very into the whole idea of states' rights. They were very open to the idea that two states could be very unlike each other with different laws. At one time, each state even had its own currency. It was all about the states making decisions for themselves.
But since they learned the hard way that they would have to have a unified government to handle certain matters, they reassembled and decided that they would have to write laws that all the states would be held accounted to. The small states, since they had a smaller population, were concerned that their opinion would be drowned out by the big states. The electoral college was a way to make sure that whatever the little states said was just as important as what the big states said.
That's the reason why Congress is split into two groups: there is a House of Representatives and a Senate. In the House of Representatives, each state receives representation proportional to its population. However, in the Senate each state gets two representatives no matter what the population of it.
Which is why the Electoral College is so out of date. All of the states are practically identical now, so they don't have to worry as much about equal representation.
Thank for your reply "spirit"
Another question, if I may.
I was told that the "Constitution" says, it is the right or responsiblity of the states to elect the president, not the right of the people. If that is correct then my guess is that the founding fathers idea was that the president would be the representative in Washington of the states, and the elected congressman and senators would be the peoples representatives in Washington.
If thats the case, then states like Texas, Florida, California and New York are under-represented, one rep per 600,000 citizens, Wyoming has one rep for every 115,000.
Something else my American wife told me was that in the "Constitution" it reads that there should be one representative for no more that 30,000 citizens.!!!!
Oh Bugger, can you imagine the taxes it would take to pay for 10,000 congressman????
Well that's the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
Something else my American wife told me was that in the "Constitution" it reads that there should be one representative for no more that 30,000 citizens.!!!!
If that's true it's probably amended. I have to look that up.
Thank for your reply "spirit"
You're welcome
I was told that the "Constitution" says, it is the right or responsiblity of the states to elect the president, not the right of the people. If that is correct then my guess is that the founding fathers idea was that the president would be the representative in Washington of the states, and the elected congressman and senators would be the peoples representatives in Washington.
If thats the case, then states like Texas, Florida, California and New York are under-represented, one rep per 600,000 citizens, Wyoming has one rep for every 115,000.
Something else my American wife told me was that in the "Constitution" it reads that there should be one representative for no more that 30,000 citizens.!!!!
Oh Bugger, can you imagine the taxes it would take to pay for 10,000 congressman????
I'm not sure if either of those are true, but I do know that the founding fathers were afraid of giving the general people too much power. On one hand, they were extremely afraid of a strong, central government and on the other they were afraid that the average person would be too uneducated to make important decisions such as who gets to run the country. So I would not be surprised if the Constitution did say those things. We have to remember that the Constitution was written by a bunch of rich, white, highly-educated men, so a lot of them did lack confidence in the average citizen.
Apportionment of Representatives in each state is based upon the census taken every 10 years.
If you folks who don't understand why there's an Electoral system are upset with THAT...how come you aren't griping about the fact that a state like California only has one senator per 18 MILLION people....and yet a state like Wyoming has a senator for every 255 THOUSAND folks? Hmmmm? That really doesn't seem fair...does it?
Which do you think should be the way that we determine which candidate really becomes the President? Should it be based on the number of votes that the candidate gets or the number of electoral points they get? Should the favorite amongst the people win or the favorite amongst the electoral college? Which method do you think is the best?
You need an electoral college, because there are way to many Americans, without the brain power to vote properly. The electoral brings voting from the micro level, up to a macro one, so the inconsistant votes won't matter in the big scheme of things. The object is to vote a leader, and not get embroiled in a legal battle every election.
Take the 2000 elections. The electoral college made the "chad" issue irrelevant. It was the "change the rules so we can win" Democrats that turned that election into a circus, because they didn't like the outcome.
It was the "change the rules so we can win" Democrats that turned that election into a circus, because they didn't like the outcome.
I was shocked so many didn't even know what the rules were. Of course, with the state of public education... nothing surprises me much anymore.
how come you aren't griping about the fact that a state like California only has one senator per 18 MILLION people....and yet a state like Wyoming has a senator for every 255 THOUSAND folks? Hmmmm? That really doesn't seem fair...does it?
No, that is not fair.
You need an electoral college, because there are way to many Americans, without the brain power to vote properly.
So then how are we supposed to sort out the idiotic voter from the smart voter? Isn't that just saying, "The general public is too stupid to make important decisions like this"? It's not fair to the people who do vote responsibly, and it makes voting a joke and a waste of time.
how come you aren't griping about the fact that a state like California only has one senator per 18 MILLION people....and yet a state like Wyoming has a senator for every 255 THOUSAND folks? Hmmmm? That really doesn't seem fair...does it?
No, that is not fair.
You need an electoral college, because there are way to many Americans, without the brain power to vote properly.
So then how are we supposed to sort out the idiotic voter from the smart voter? Isn't that just saying, "The general public is too stupid to make important decisions like this"? It's not fair to the people who do vote responsibly, and it makes voting a joke and a waste of time.
What else in the Constitution would you change if you could?