To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Also, most of the recounts (including a big one by multiple news organizations) found Bush did indeed win Florida.
Yes, and No.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
In that case, you are one step removed from just having the incoming House of Representatives decide the President.
Not really. Under the congressional district system, the statewide winner gets the senatorial votes (so in a close election the winner should end up with more EC votes). The House votes by state (each state gets 1 vote). The vote is decided by that state's congressional delegation in the House.
so... the gerrymandered all to hell districts will set who is president?
A popular vote would be better....every vote counts and candidates would work hard in all 50 states because you can't write off Nebraska as a Democrat since there are democrats who will vote for you, and California has value to Republicans, etc.
I agree that using the gerrymandered congressional districts would be wrong. May as well go to a parlaimentary system instead (which I don't want). And it was shown in an article yesterday that Romney would've won under that system, despite losing the popular vote by three million votes (as I write this), since the current congressional districts were gerrymandered by the Republican party since they controlled the state legislatures at the time the most recent gerrymandering occurred (which is why the Republicans won the most House seats, despite losing the House popular vote).
As for a national popular vote for president, first here has to be a national ballot/voting mechanism. The moment you go to a national popular vote, you cannot have states using different voting systems (different numbers of hours of early voting, differences in allowing vote-by-mail, differences in voting stations per capita, etc), because the different voting systems of each state cause voting to be "easier" (i.e. more convenient) in some states than in others, so some states have a naturally higher voter participation, which would skew a national popular vote count.
I've actually come to like the electoral college, myself. But if we get rid of it, I'd rather go to popular vote than congressional district based voting, for the reasons stated above.
I am going to paint the nightmare scenario for you. Every district has a few votes that never really get counted because...well, something was wrong with them and it doesn't matter because the election isn't close enough.
What if it was close enough? What if it was within a million votes? Can you imagine the lawsuits in every precinct in the country fishing for votes? The EC actually does serve a bit of a purpose.
I personally think the hand wringing over it is a tad much. It's mostly irrelevant, but it does help settle things when the election is close (Florida being the one exception and really is anyone shocked that happened in Florida?).




Member since:
2012-01-24
If each state allocated their electors by congressional district (like Maine does), it would pretty much fix the major problem with the EC and would not require a constitutional fix. Winner take all is pretty silly.
Also, most of the recounts (including a big one by multiple news organizations) found Bush did indeed win Florida.
The EC has one big benefit. It typically makes individual voting issues irrelevant. 2000 being the big exception.