United States electoral college, votes by state LOC 2008626928
(Image by (From Wikimedia) Nolan, Jacqueline V.; Congressional Cartography Program (Library Of Congress) / loc.gov/item/2008626928/, Author: See Source) Details Source DMCA
Bush II and Trump were both elected President by winning the electoral college, while losing the popular vote. Putting aside voter suppression, caging, registration stripping, removing voting booths in Democratic districts, interstate crosscheck, and other tricks Republicans engaged in (See gregpalast.com), does this really represent the will of the people? No, not really. It's a perverse result, but let's not throw out the electoral college baby with the plurality takes-all bathwater, that really needs to go.
I've been told that one reason for the Electoral college is that the first 5 or so elections would have been decided by New York City otherwise. Everyone agrees it's meant to give smaller, rural states more say in our federal system. Full disclosure, I'm from a small state (Vermont), so I like the concept. But as in all other "winner takes all" elections in the US, the outcome is idiotic if the "winner" is allowed to win with a plurality. Let me give you some examples:
Colorado 1992:
Bill
Clinton gets 40.13% of the vote, George HW Bush gets 35.87% of the vote, and
Ross Perot gets 23.32% of the vote.
Do the math: 35.87 (Bush) + 23.32 (Perot) = 59.19% of the people voted against Clinton and he still wins all 8 electoral votes. That's a landslide against Clinton. How stupid is that? See for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election_in_Colorado
How about 1980 in Massachusetts: Reagan gets 41.90%, Carter gets 41.75%, and Independent John Anderson gets 15.15%.
Do the math: 41.75 (Carter) + 15.15 (Anderson) = 56.9% voted
against Reagan and he still wins all 14 electoral votes. Really dumb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election_in_Massachusetts
How about the pivotal Florida "hanging chad" election in 2000 decided by the Supreme Court stopping the recount:
George W. Bush 48.847%, Al Gore 48.838%, Ralph Nader 1.635%,
and other candidates .68%.
Do the math:
48.838 (Gore) + 1.635 (Nader) + .68 (others) = 51.153% voted against Bush and
he still wins all 25 electoral votes.
Winner takes all is a total farce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida
The country is not blue and red by state. Every state is a purple mix:
US voter Registration by county:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#/media/File:Gastner_map_purple_byarea_bycounty.png
Nebraska and Maine already allocate some electoral votes by Congressional District. The solution is much simpler. Allocate electoral votes by percentage of the vote received. I know that's proportional representation, and it's something those libtard, communist, pinko, fags in Europe and nearly every other democracy in the world use, but maybe that's not the problem. Maybe Americans just can't do fractions?
Let's go back to Colorado in 1992:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
