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 18th 2008 Sidestepping the electoral college Los Angeles Times Editorial supporting the National Popular Vote movement. August 18th 2008 Popular Vote Is A Popular Choice For Bay State Worcester Business Journal Op-ed by Christian Smith-Socaris of the Progressive States Network on the National Popular Vote August 8th 2008 Candidates ignore R.I.: FairVote's Ari Savitzky and former U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) write commentary making the case for the National Popular Vote plan for president. July 26th 2008 Americans don't vote for long list of reasons The Kansas City Star The Kansas City Star takes a look at several reasons for low voter turnout in the U.S. FairVote's Adam Fogel says the government is not making an effort to ensure full, accurate voter rolls. July 21st 2008 State's electoral votes may end up playing hard to get The Brown Daily Herald The Daily Herald's coverage of the national popular vote push in RI quotes FairVote RI's Ari Savitzky [ Previous ] [ Next ]