bettergetdave said:
I was incorrect to say it was created for that purpose, I think the purpose was to give proper weight to the states versus big and small and balance them out. It is possible but highly rare to have what you say happen yes. But the big benefit of the electoral college is that it prevents that in "most" cases as well. Even when it doesn't the margin is very small as I pointed out. Again a straight popular vote like the original poster was suggesting would be a disaster and leave the door open for candidates to win that would not have the support of the majority of the country. Simple math says if you have 10 votes and the most votes wins between 3 candidates 4-3-3, the person with 4 wins even though 6 didn't even want that person. Worse case scenario with the electoral college is someone with 4.9 votes wins and the perons with 5.1 loses...and that again is very rare. |
Well, with your last scenario that isnt something the electoral college will help prevent, that is something the two party system helps prevent. Which if there is a strong third party candidate then you do see that kind of result even with the electoral college (see bill Clinton). The electoral college was set up to help prevent regional bias from affecting the results, but it has far outlived its usefulness. For one thing, the country doesn't really have the whole north versus south thing anymore. For another, the electoral college now gives a handful of states, the battleground states, control of the election. Candidates don't even bother with the rest of states anymore. Basically, the electoral college creates the exact scenario it was designed to prevent.
