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	October 26th 2008 It's time to get rid of Electoral College Editorial in the Houston Chronicle calls for the direct election of the President and asks readers to support the National Popular Vote initiative. October 26th 2008 Make all votes count Disenchanted by the recent lack of attention paid to Michigan, Detroit Free Press editor Ron Dzwonkowski argues for the National Popular Vote interstate compact to make Michigan voters relevant throughout every campaign. October 25th 2008 Blue State Blues New York Times op-ed columnist Gail Collins addresses the sense of neglect felt by voters in "spectator" states as a result of the Electoral College and the winner-take-all method of allocating states' electors. October 23rd 2008 The Electoral College And Other Hazards National Journal Interview with FairVote Executive Director Rob Richie on prospects for electoral reform. October 17th 2008 October 17th Update on Presidential Visits and Spending FairVote's press release shows that in the "Swing States of America," candidates ignore a majority of states and follow voting patterns of 2004 Presidential Election. [ Previous ] [ Next ]