gergroy said:
bettergetdave said:
Because it serves as a winner take all system. I think there is only a 3-4 times in history that someone took the popular vote and didn't win the electoral college and it has been a difference of about 100K-500K votes. In the grand scheme of things it works pretty well. It is not at all like having a situation where someone wins 40% of the vote and the election. 60% of the country that could have voted for 2 other people combined definitely would be unhappy with the 3rd choice elected by only 40% of the country. Don't forget the system also protects smaller and larger states and cities making the candidates be more than just regional popular. You have to win a majority of the map and not just get all the votes in 5 largest states whose population greatly out weighs 15 other states.
|
Ok, but the electoral college is still weighted for population so big states do have more say... And it still creates a situation where the minority of people can elect the president versus a popular vote system... Which in your first post you indicated it was created to stop that from happening...
|
ehm no, the us systems gives a vote of a small state more power than one from a big state, because there is a minimum number of members of the electoral college of every state, and this minimum is so high that many small state get more votes than they would without this minimum.
