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	August 12th 2007 States Try to Alter How Presidents Are Elected New York Times NY Times article on the attempt by California and North Carolina to award their Electoral College votes by congressional district. It draws on FairVote's report on the issue to outline the flaws of this method. August 9th 2007 Fuzzy Math: Wrong Way Reforms for Allocating Electoral College Votes August 7th 2007 A Red Play for the Golden State Newsweek Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter explains how the proposal to award California's and North Carolina's electoral votes by congressional district are motivated by short-term political gain. August 6th 2007 GOP eyes California's electoral pie Los Angeles Times The author explains why Republicans want California's electoral votes distributed by congressional districts. In a safely Democratic state, such a move will add an additional score votes to the Republicans' tally - the equivalent of winning Ohio. August 2nd 2007 Votescam The New Yorker FairVote board member Hendrik Hertzberg writes on the folly of the statewide and national implications of the congressional district electoral vote scheme. [ Previous ] [ Next ]