FairVote - Vague Values

Vague Values

The Electoral College system not only removes the voice of a majority of the country, but in the end distorts the will of voters. George Edwards III explains, “There is typically a substantial disparity in almost all elections between the national popular vote a candidate receives and that candidate’s percentage of the electoral vote. In the election of 1860, although Stephen A. Douglas was second in popular votes, he was fourth in the Electoral College. Although he won 74 percent as many popular votes as were cast for Abraham Lincoln, his electoral vote was just 6.7 percent of Lincoln’s. Douglas’s popular vote was 162 percent of John C. Breckinridge’s, yet he received only 16.7 percent as many electoral votes as Breckinridge. And Douglas’s popular vote exceeded John Bell’s by more than two times, but Bell had three times as many votes in the Electoral College.” (George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America)

Electoral Replacements

Electoral Tie

Favorite Son Effect

A Few States Wins

Constitutional Residence

State Size

Special Interests

Power of State Legislatures

Unlucky Luck

Ignoring Your Vote

More Options

Electoral College Table of Contents



Home. > Presidential Elections Reform > Resources > Electoral College > How the Electoral College works today > Little Known Facts > Vague Values
	Vague Values The Electoral College system not only removes the voice of a majority of the country, but in the end distorts the will of voters. George Edwards III explains, “There is typically a substantial disparity in almost all elections between the national popular vote a candidate receives and that candidate’s percentage of the electoral vote. In the election of 1860, although Stephen A. Douglas was second in popular votes, he was fourth in the Electoral College. Although he won 74 percent as many popular votes as were cast for Abraham Lincoln, his electoral vote was just 6.7 percent of Lincoln’s. Douglas’s popular vote was 162 percent of John C. Breckinridge’s, yet he received only 16.7 percent as many electoral votes as Breckinridge. And Douglas’s popular vote exceeded John Bell’s by more than two times, but Bell had three times as many votes in the Electoral College.” (George C. Edwards III, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America) Electoral Replacements Electoral Tie Favorite Son Effect A Few States Wins Constitutional Residence State Size Special Interests Power of State Legislatures Unlucky Luck Ignoring Your Vote More Options Electoral College Table of Contents	December 15th 2008 Garrett J. Bradley and Pamela H. Wilmot: In the most important election, all votes should matter Enterprise News Massachusetts State Rep and Common Cause director make the case against the electoral college. December 14th 2008 It's Time to Junk the Electoral College Wall Street Journal Commentary by Jonathan Soros in favor of the National Popular Vote Plan. December 13th 2008 Exam day at the Electoral College, missing concepts and statehouse follies Buffalo News According to the electoral research group FairVote, 98 percent of presidential or vice presidential candidate events were held in just 15 states, and 57 percent were held in the pivotal states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia. November 30th 2008 Ensure that every vote counts Times Union National Popular Vote's John Koza comments on low voter turnout in safe states during the 2008 Presidential election, despite record-breaking turnout levels in key battleground states. November 19th 2008 Flunking the Electoral College New York Times editorial speaks out strongly against the Electoral College and favors the National Popular Vote movement. [ Previous ] [ Next ]