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 14th 2002 Just because majority of voters hate you, it doesn't mean you can't win Daily Herald John Anderson is cited with his description of instant runoff voting (IRV), which would introduce majority voting and improve democracy. August 20th 2001 Hard-won voting rights always in peril San Francisco Examiner We must break from the two-party system, institute proportional representation, implement instant runoff voting (IRV), and begin direct election of the President in order to truly level the playing field for minorities and women. July 12th 2001 Preventing the next Florida fiasco Daily Texan The Daily Texan discusses the massive benefits brought by instant-runoff voting to an electoral system. March 12th 2001 Reclaiming Democracy The American Prospect NYU law professor Burt Neuborne discusses a wide range of reforms, including calls for serious consideration of instant runoff voting and proportional voting methods January 24th 2001 Meddling with Reform/A Clear Majority Winner in 2000 TomPaine.com Rob Richie proposes instant runoff voting and proportional allocation of electoral votes at a time when national popular election of the president seems unlikely; John Anderson offers IRV as a remedy to the spoiler effect. [ Previous ] [ Next ]