President Lincoln was elected because of the Electoral College

Is the Electoral College a good thing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 76.5%
  • No

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • Still analyzing this?

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Total voters
    17

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,556.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
President Lincoln only received 37% of the popular vote. It was the Electoral College that put him in as President.
The Electoral College, plus the fact that he received far more votes than any other candidate. Lincoln got 40% of the popular vote while the second place candidate got 29%.
 
Upvote 0

John Bowen

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 16, 2018
417
233
53
dueba
✟48,940.00
Country
Fiji
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In the past it was needed cause it would take too long to count the votes .It would be too long a period with out knowing who the president was.Today we have instant communication it's no longer needed .This technology also allows us to today to have Direct Democracy where We the People vote on issues our selves ending all the gridlock in D.C. that clearly isn't working anymore. True democracy one person one vote and everyone vote matters.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,556.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In the past it was needed cause it would take too long to count the votes .It would be too long a period with out knowing who the president was.
That is not the reason for the Electoral College, which chooses the President long after the election. The electors themselves are only chosen after the votes are counted, so all the College does is slow things down. The Electoral College was intended to insulate the selection of the President from the whims of the crowd, and to give states a role in the process.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is not the reason for the Electoral College, which chooses the President long after the election. The electors themselves are only chosen after the votes are counted, so all the College does is slow things down. The Electoral College was intended to insulate the selection of the President from the whims of the crowd, and to give states a role in the process.
Yes, but it also prevents a candidate from winning 15 states, losing 35 states, and still winning the election.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Truthfrees
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,459
8,968
Florida
✟321,876.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
President Lincoln only received 37% of the popular vote. It was the Electoral College that put him in as President.
M-Bob

George Washington got zero percent of the popular vote because there was no popular vote then.

What people don't understand is that the American people do not elect the president. The president is elected by the States. All States have decided that their electors are chosen by popular vote.

Any State legislature could simply end popular voting for electors and choose their electors some other way.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,265
3,542
Louisville, Ky
✟812,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
President Lincoln only received 37% of the popular vote. It was the Electoral College that put him in as President.
M-Bob
I hope that you aren't comparing Lincoln's election to Trump's because they don't compare.

The Electoral College played a large part in Presidential elections in the past due to the number of parties and candidates. There were 4 major candidates and Lincoln got far more popular votes than the others. The ironic thing was that the one with the 2nd most popular votes came in last in the electoral college voting.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Yes, but it also prevents a candidate from winning 15 states, losing 35 states, and still winning the election.

That is based in the collectivist idea that states have rights that are higher than individual rights, and that some people's votes should count more than the votes of other people. It was the basis of representation in the old Soviet Union.

It's also based on the fear that the average American is unable to make good decisions. Looking at the record of presidents elected in spite of losing the popular vote, I'd have to say that the average American does pretty well.
  • 1824: John Quincy Adams
  • 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
  • 1888: Benjamin Harrison
  • 2000: George W. Bush
  • 2016: Donald Trump
If that's not a point for direct election of presidents, I don't know what is.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
  • 1824: John Quincy Adams
  • 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
  • 1888: Benjamin Harrison
  • 2000: George W. Bush
  • 2016: Donald Trump
If that's not a point for direct election of presidents, I don't know what is.
Actually, I was thinking just the opposite. It looks like we ducked a few bullets there.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That is based in the collectivist idea that states have rights that are higher than individual rights, and that some people's votes should count more than the votes of other people. It was the basis of representation in the old Soviet Union.

It's also based on the fear that the average American is unable to make good decisions. Looking at the record of presidents elected in spite of losing the popular vote, I'd have to say that the average American does pretty well.
  • 1824: John Quincy Adams
  • 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
  • 1888: Benjamin Harrison
  • 2000: George W. Bush
  • 2016: Donald Trump
If that's not a point for direct election of presidents, I don't know what is.
I have no fear, I just don't think it's fair that the North East and West Coast alone would be able to dictate the direction of the rest of the country.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Even though that's where most of the people are?

You can Google this... there is well over 300 million people in the US... and about 100 million on the West Coast and the North East. So maybe 1/3rd of the population lives in those areas? Do you really believe that the 33% minority has the right to set the course for the 66% majority?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
George Washington got zero percent of the popular vote because there was no popular vote then.

What people don't understand is that the American people do not elect the president. The president is elected by the States. All States have decided that their electors are chosen by popular vote.

Any State legislature could simply end popular voting for electors and choose their electors some other way.

Hallelujah! I'm glad there is at least one other person who understands this. There have been some interesting proposals in recent memory for changing how electors are selected.

However, with that said, Lincoln caused a huge shift in American government. We no longer operate like a Federation, even though we call ourselves one. For the most part we do operate like a single-state republic.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,556.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You can Google this... there is well over 300 million people in the US... and about 100 million on the West Coast and the North East. So maybe 1/3rd of the population lives in those areas? Do you really believe that the 33% minority has the right to set the course for the 66% majority?
Huh? In a nationwide popular election, everyone's vote would count equally. Where those voters happen to live has nothing whatever to do with the outcome of the election. Under the current system, however, huge numbers of votes are completely meaningless. A Republican in Massachusetts or a Democrat in Mississippi might as well not bother voting for president. And there's no obvious reason why a voter in a small state should have more of a say in who becomes president than a voter in a large state.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I have no fear, I just don't think it's fair that the North East and West Coast alone would be able to dictate the direction of the rest of the country.

In a free country, the leader is picked by the people, not by political units or officials. That's why the number of electors are based on population. But it's not exact, and as you see, the candidate rejected by the voters actually won the election five different times.

As you also see, the results have been uniformly bad for the country.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,919
11,306
76
✟363,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Huh? In a nationwide popular election, everyone's vote would count equally. Where those voters happen to live has nothing whatever to do with the outcome of the election. Under the current system, however, huge numbers of votes are completely meaningless. A Republican in Massachusetts or a Democrat in Mississippi might as well not bother voting for president.

Which is also an injustice. One possible way out, is to allocate electoral votes by the percentage for each candidate. But that would be letting the voters decide, which some powerful people don't like.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tulc
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In a free country, the leader is picked by the people, not by political units or officials. That's why the number of electors are based on population. But it's not exact, and as you see, the candidate rejected by the voters actually won the election five different times.

As you also see, the results have been uniformly bad for the country.
The electoral votes are based on how the people voted. While they are not bound to that... that is how it has always played out which means the leader will always getting picked by the people.
 
Upvote 0