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	March 9th 2006 Electoral College Drop-Out Los Angeles City Beat Prominent columnist Andrew Gumbel voices support for the National Popular Vote Campaign; he criticizes the problems of the Electoral College and the lack of campaigning in most states. March 5th 2006 At long last: A truly fair popular presidential vote? The Houston Chronicle Nationally syndicated columnist Neal Peirce, an Electoral College and popular vote expert, quotes FairVote chairman John Anderson in an op-ed hopeful for reform. March 1st 2006 We vote for a fairer way to decide national elections Chicago Sun-Times A ringing endorsement from the Chicago Sun-Times of the National Popular Vote campaign, of which FairVote is a lead coalition member. February 28th 2006 The Electoral College: A new approach to an increasingly serious problem Sacramento Bee The Electoral College's violations of political equality make the case for presidential election reform particularly pressing, according to FairVote's Rob Richie and Ryan O'Donnell. February 27th 2006 Count 'Em The New Yorker New Yorker columnist Hendrik Hertzberg touts merits of National Popular Vote plan. [ Previous ] [ Next ]