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 28th 2004 The electoral college is doing harm to our democracy South Brunswick Post (NJ) It is time to find alternatives to the Electoral College and enact reforms such as instant runoff voting and full public financing. October 24th 2004 Election Reform Also on Ballot The News Standard (NY) A proposed amendment in Colorado would allow the state to distribute its electors to the electoral college based on the popular vote outcome. October 22nd 2004 Electoral College Football CBS News The 220-year-old Electoral College may be the bane of Election 2004. If the Electoral College ties in a 269-269 vote, some outlandish scenarios become plausible for the election of our nation's highest leader. October 20th 2004 Loser take all? Our electoral rules demand reform Knight-Ridder/Tribune American voting system does not function well due to the antiquated Electoral College and winner-take-all rule. October 20th 2004 A to-do list for the day after Nov. 2 Detroit Free Press The 2004 Presidential election will leave many people disappointed, and in its wake, three key reforms should be purused: electoral college reform, instant runoff voting, and allowing immigrants to serve as President. [ Previous ] [ Next ]