Posted on 10/04/2020 7:24:27 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
It remains one of the most surprising facts about voting in the United States: While the popular vote elects members of Congress, mayors, governors, state legislators and even more obscure local officials, it does not determine the winner of the presidency, the highest office in the land....
The electoral system has also awarded the presidency to candidates with a plurality of the popular vote (under 50 percent) in a number of cases, notably Abraham Lincoln in 1860, John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996....
“It’s just like in tennis,” he said. “It’s how many sets you win and not how many games or points you win. You have to win the set, and in our system, you have to win the state.”....
Lastly, an election-related case could find its way to the Supreme Court, which would lend greater importance to the judicial makeup of the court, Professor Wehle said.
“It only takes five people with life tenure to actually amend this Constitution through a judicial opinion,” she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Only to idiots.
Because the United States vote for President, not their citizens.
So confirm Barrett NOW.
When it is explain objectively and in the proper context, it makes all the sense in the world.
If it were abolished (not “amended”) the union would dissolve overnight. I am sure that would surprise these idiots.
You summed it up in three words.
THREE WORDS.
“Only to idiots.”
Now c’mon, man. Don’t YOU rely on the NYT to tell you how and what to think?
Inquiring Minds Want To Know
(Tag line for the NYT’s biggest competitor, The National Enquirer.
I've noticed that feelings have been amped up in the current situation.
The wire services are constantly going on about this and appear to be encouraging the public to switch to a popular vote method.
Pollsters are conducting polls based on faulty use of inductive reasoning to transform the debate.
Voters need to be educated and have a stronger grounding in the fundamental necessity for the continuation of the Electrical College.
People who worship the “popular vote” should love our system...instead of one
“popular vote, we have 50!!
And we saw a lot of those idiots come out of the wood work after Trump was elected: “But, she won the popular vote.”
The Senate and the Electoral College together stood out against a one-chamber Congress and “popular” election of the President as bulwarks against the possibility of tyranny by the “majority”.
A Republic lasts only as long as its institutions obtain broad and diverse consensus, through compromise, across the land of the Republic, for most major policies and changes. It cannot survive with but a few super populated parts of the land lording over all the rest of the Republic in major decisions. The tyranny of the majority will create sectional, and regional divisions that can potentially either split up the republic or wind up obtaining a dictatorship.
The Senate and the Electoral College make compromise and respect for the minority institutionalized by the Constitution.
And total BS
LOL! So true.
The Electoral College ensures that the less populated states have a voice in who will be the president.
I really don’t understand this seeming surprise about the electoral college system. In parliamentary systems like Britain and Canada, the people don’t vote for the Prime Minister, the majority party in Parliament does. Unless you are in the PM’s constituency/riding his name isn’t on your ballot.
The party winning the most votes doesn’t necessarily gain the most seats in Parliament so our system isn’t all that different than theirs, yet you don’t hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about how they conduct elections.
What’s so hard to understand, 50 states, 50 separate elections for president.
exactly
otherwise the only places anyone would care about are the largest cities
and these are not representative of the vast majority of the country
For the same reason the Pirates won the 1960 World Series, even though the Yankees outscored them 55-27 over the seven-game contest.
Interesting that liberals didn’t bitch about the EC when Clinton won twice.
It amazes me how few people in IT know the difference between an Inquiry and a Query.
Surprisingly, that genius lady in the Parade magazine—Marilyn Vos Savant, i think (who seems to be liberal)—just published a straightforward defense of the EC. “Because states with smaller populations don’t want to be controlled by states with large populations.” She offered the analogy of a United Countries being run by China and India unless there was a mechanism to give a less populated country like the US equal footing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.