Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541164
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I think that this 'disproportion' due to most states taking a 'winner-take-all' method may not reflect the popular vote precisely but it works fine. In democracy, the majority rules and if the majority of a State goes one way or the other why is it broken when the electoral votes all get cast for the winner in that State? That is, in effect, majority rule.
RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Tuishimi on Tue 6th Nov 2012 20:50
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Soulbender on Wed 7th Nov 2012 02:15
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"





Member since:
2010-06-08
It uses what's called "Electoral College". People don't vote for the president, they vote for "electors". Those electors in their turn vote for the actual president. This causes disproportionate influence of some states on the outcome (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state#Criticism_and_proposed_ref... ).
Direct elections are more democratic and can better represent the choice of the populace.
Edited 2012-11-06 18:49 UTC