Dear Founding Fathers: Wasn't the Electoral College supposed to...

[scottxyz]

...turn close election results into landslides or "mandates"?

Funny how it's nearly always done that - except in 2 recent elections: 2000 and 2004.

Just wondering.

= = =

You can out the historical pie charts here yourself -
a POPULAR vote pie chart, next to an ELECTORAL vote pie chart
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/
The ELECTORAL pie chart is always more "lopsided" (winner takes more)

Comparing the POPULAR VOTE pie chart to the ELECTORAL VOTE pie chart, you can see that the Electoral College "magnifies" the victory - giving the winner a bigger chunk of the pie (because of the winner-takes-all rule for most states).

I think I read somewhere the Founding Fathers did this on purpose, thinking a little extra show of unity couldn't hurt once the winner was declared. Little did they know that Karl Rove and the Urosevich brothers would learn to "game" this system - managing to boil it down to just a FEW states (FL, OH...) and a FEW counties in them (Cuyahoga, Palm Beach County...) where a little "tweaking" would be needed. And who knows - while they were at it, they could have easily thrown in a few "tweaks" in Blue states, just to get their boy's popular-vote totals up.

The minimally tweaked Rove-Urosevich-administered elections (2000 and 2004) are the FIRST ones in history where both halves of the pie for the Electoral College are roughly even.

Now what's all this babbling about your "Mandate," Bush?

[DoBotherMe]

1. Is this called "gaming the system?"

I needed to read your post more clearly ... you agree. I read the first graph and deduced it was gaming. Disgraceful.

[scottxyz]

4. Deleted

Deleted, in response to update in message this was in response to.

[Cats Against Frist]

2. They invented the Electoral College because we live in

a Constitutional Republic -- NOT a democracy. The idea was to protect smaller states from the tyranny of the bigger states. Funny how that worked out.

Anyway -- what does the GOP care about tyranical majorities -- since they seek to overturn a couple hundred years of judicial precedent and subject everything to their tyrannical majority?

[scottxyz]

5. Actually CONSERVATIVES like the EC's side-effect of MAGNIFYING VICTORIES

"Human Events Online - The National Conservative Weekly" says...

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4829

One of the great strengths of the Electoral College is that it tends to magnify presidential victories. For example, although Bill Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote in either 1992 or 1996, he won comfortably in the Electoral College, which gave him a mandate to govern even though he lacked majority support among voters. {Clinton had the most votes, but it was under 50% - technically a "plurality" - not a "majority".}


And conservative think-tank The American Heritage Foundation says...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm15.cfm

Stability and Certainty in Elections. Historically, most elections have not been close in the Electoral College, even when the popular vote is close. The Electoral College system, when combined with the winner-take-all rule, tends to magnify the margin of victory, giving the victor a certain and demonstrable election outcome. The magnification of the electoral vote can work to solidify the country behind the new President by bestowing an aura of legitimacy.

The election of 1960 was one such close election. John Kennedy won only 49.7 percent of the popular vote, compared to Nixon's 49.5 percent. However, Kennedy won 56.4 percent of the electoral vote, compared to Nixon's 40.8 percent. Eight years later, this magnification effect worked in favor of Nixon. Although he won the popular vote by less than one percent, he won 55.9 percent of the electoral vote to Hubert Humphrey's 35.5 percent. This magnification effect increases dramatically as popular vote totals spread apart. For instance, in 1952, the winning candidate won 55.1 percent of the popular vote, but a much larger 83.2 percent of the Electoral College vote. In 1956, the difference was 57.4 percent (popular vote) to 86.1 percent (electoral vote). In 1964, it was 61.1 percent (popular vote) to 90.3 percent (electoral vote).

Presidential elections since 1804 have generally seen wide margins of victory in the Electoral College. These margins have gotten wider, on average, through the years as the winner-take-all rule has been adopted by more states and the two-party system has solidified. Since 1804, only two elections -- those in 1876 and 2000 {UPDATE: AND NOW 2004!} -- were won by fewer than 20 electoral votes.

= = =

There has NEVER been a President in history with as LITTLE of a mandate as Bush.

You know the saying - all cowboy boots, no mandate.

[EPV101773]

3. I agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.petitiononline.com/USAVote/


Great post.

[DieboldMustDie]

6. "There was no popular vote in the election of 1789.

Instead, the electoral college chose from a group of candidates. Each college member cast two votes with the candidate receiving the most votes becoming president and the runner-up becoming vice-president. George Washington was elected unanimously receiving all sixty-nine electoral votes. John Adams came in second and became the first Vice-President."

http://americanhistory.about.com/cs/georgewashington/f/washelection.htm