- Sep 6, 2016
- 15,961
- 10,817
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
President Lincoln only received 37% of the popular vote. It was the Electoral College that put him in as President.
M-Bob
M-Bob
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%.President Lincoln only received 37% of the popular vote. It was the Electoral College that put him in as President.
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.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.
Yes, but it also prevents a candidate from winning 15 states, losing 35 states, and still winning the election.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.
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.President Lincoln only received 37% of the popular vote. It was the Electoral College that put him in as President.
M-Bob
Yes, but it also prevents a candidate from winning 15 states, losing 35 states, and still winning the election.
Actually, I was thinking just the opposite. It looks like we ducked a few bullets there.If that's not a point for direct election of presidents, I don't know what is.
- 1824: John Quincy Adams
- 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
- 1888: Benjamin Harrison
- 2000: George W. Bush
- 2016: Donald Trump
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.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.
If that's not a point for direct election of presidents, I don't know what is.
- 1824: John Quincy Adams
- 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
- 1888: Benjamin Harrison
- 2000: George W. Bush
- 2016: Donald Trump
Even though that's where most of the people are?
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.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.