So another Tory Govt...

Наводници:

There has been four cases already of a candidate being elected President of the United States without winning the popular vote. 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. If you keep this electoral college system around, there will surely be more in the future.

1824 election
J. Q. Adams: 113,122 votes (won election)
Andrew Jackson: 151,271 votes (lost election)

1876 election
Rutherford Hayes, 4,034,311 votes (won election)
Samuel Tilden, 4,288,546 votes (lost election)

1888 election
Benjamin Harrison, 5,443,892 votes (won election)
Grover Cleveland, 5,534,488 votes (lost election)

2000 election
George Bush, 50,456,002 votes (won election)
Al Gore, 50,999,897 votes (lost election)

I'm sorry, but doesn't those four cases run just a little bit contrary to the spirit of democratic elections?

Why is the distinction of "state" even important? If a candidate has bigger popular support, nationally, behind him than his opponents, he should be elected President, no?

Im aware that it has occurred in the past and yes it could happen in the future but you fail to recognize how often the system has worked. In the over 200 years of using it, there are only 4 examples of the president elect not receiving the most popular vote. Furthermore, that number can be reduced to three as the 1824 election that you bring up was a different case. In that election, neither of the 4 candidates received the required electoral college votes which meant that the top 2 guys would then be decided by the house of representatives. That's why Jackson lost.

Напишано од Dereny, 18.05.2015 at 19:16

Im aware that it has occurred in the past and yes it could happen in the future but you fail to recognize how often the system has worked. In the over 200 years of using it, there are only 4 examples of the president elect not receiving the most popular vote. Furthermore, that number can be reduced to three as the 1824 election that you bring up was a different case. In that election, neither of the 4 candidates received the required electoral college votes which meant that the top 2 guys would then be decided by the house of representatives. That's why Jackson lost.

Well, yes. The US electoral college has done well in all but four prior elections. The question is, why settle for "good enough" when you can do better? A simple popular alternative vote would do much, much better.