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 29th 2007 Md. Senate Advances Bill To Dodge Electoral College Washington Post Maryland's state Senate has passed the National Popular Vote plan, and Governor O'Malley will sign. March 20th 2007 Semantics need not stop a bedrock principle The Washington Times Adrienne Washington argues that the courts, not Congress, should decide the constitutionality of the DC Voting Rights Act of 2007. February 15th 2007 Real Democracy Or Dystopia TomPaine.com New America's Steven Hill highlights America's crossroads: a diminishing role for voters in dumbed down elections or real democracy characterized by diverse legislatures, fair media and a directly elected president. February 1st 2007 Maryland can lead the way to a popular vote for president Takoma Voice Maryland Delegate Sheila Hixson endorses the National Popular Vote plan. January 7th 2007 Voting Changes Could Be Antidote To Toxic Politics Hartford Courant Neal Peirce touts direct election of the president, instant runoff and proportional voting in this commentary on the passing of reform-minded former President Gerald Ford. [ Previous ] [ Next ]