The Electoral College has been around for a few hundred years now. I'm not sure why people are so surprised that a presidential election does not come down to a popular vote.
Yep. The World Series isn't won by the team that scores the most runs, but by the team that wins 4 games.
Who's surprised about it? It's stating the fact that it's an unstable political situation if it keeps occurring. It's only happened four times in US history, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 - despite the claims of people who benefit from the situation it's entirely not a "normal" thing.
It's happened five times. 1824- John Quincy Adams finished second in the popular vote (30.9% to Jackson's 41.4%)and had the election handed to him by the US House due to no one getting a majority of the EC vote in a four way race. Historians have speculated that a bargain was made with Henry Clay the speaker of house to declare Adams the winner. Adams then appointed Clay Secretary of State, which was the stepping stone to the presidency back then. As far as corrupt elections go, this one is hard to beat. But I agree, the EC needs to go.
Ruth and Johnnie side by side, went out for an auto ride. Ruth fell out, Johnnie went on. Ruthlessly.
We're at the point now where a presidential election by popular vote is a workable solution. Right after we limit the power of the Executive, which is something we should have done in 1787.
True, but without the electoral college system Jackson would have won the election with 151,271 votes compared to Adam's 113,122. The difference in popular vote was 11 percent which is five times greater than what we saw in 2016.
That type of thing should be a two way street. Our State/Federal system definitely learned from the positives and negatives of the American system.
Not saying it's a game. But, like a game, there are rules and the rules exist for a reason. If you want to try to change the rules, knock yourself out. I'm not for a rule change and so will oppose it.
The Democrats have won two out of the last three Presidential elections (and the third they should've won but for putting up an unlikeable candidate) and they're favored to win this time (at least, according to most polls I've seen). They currently have the House and they may gain the Senate. It's not exactly like Democrats are being shut out.
The reasons many people want to change or abolish the EC often have nothing to do with their political affiliation. A lot of people just think it's an unfair system that is fundamentally undemocratic.
It still astonishes me how few Democrats understand this. They ran the shittiest candidate they possibly could in 2016, never once grasping just how widely despised Hillary was (and still is), and then were all surprised when Trump won the election. They could have run literally any other Democrat and beat him, but no. Hillary bought the election and by gum, it was hers!
It wasn't created to help or hurt political parties in the 21st Century, but to solve a problem that existed in 1787 and is even more profound now: states with smaller populations would have no voice in the federal elections if the outcome were purely popular. It is rare that the popular and electoral college outcomes differ. It's only happened recently--and then the percentage difference was small--because the country is so evenly divided. But that condition will pass. Screaming "undemocratic" doesn't end the argument. If the union is to hold together, all states have to have some voice, even if only a small one. I'd also add: going all popular would not secure the Democrats the elections. Voting patterns would change. In California, for instance, there is a pretty sizeable Republican minority, but, since it's outnumbered, it has little motivation to vote. That would change in a purely popular contest. You can't assume that if the rules changed, the voting percentages would stay the same.
The reasons for the EC have been explained over and over, but to one group all that matters is that their candidate lost, so the system has to be changed until they win.
Hillary is everything the reactionary elements of the conservative movement fear and loathe. A smart, ambitious woman, not overly concerned with personal attractiveness....2016 was the culmination of a 25 year campaign of the most disgusting hateful, organized defamation campaign that resulted in no indictments, let alone convictions, but... It worked.
yet those of us without a horse in the race likewise see it as fundamentally inequitable. if democracy were a video game, America got stuck in early access/beta.
Out of curiosity, do you have any reading you could link to on how the EC was created to ensure a minority of the population (where they are classified based on geographical location) had political power versus it having been a system designed to allow nationwide voting towards a single office in a time where travel and communications made such a thing extremely unwieldly?
One can understand why the EC was created, what its function is, and even how it has served a positive purpose in American politics without necessarily agreeing with its continued existence. It's not necessarily a Democrat/Republican thing.
The founders themselves didnt even play by their own rules as the vice president was originally the candidate who placed second in the EC. Such a rule if carried over today would have made Hillary the vice president instead of Pence. They quickly discovered the flaw in that system and changed it. So if you're for the EC because "it's what the founders wanted," then you should also be for making it the way that it was originally intended. Otherwise, let's all just admit that this EC isn't right and get rid of it
