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 22nd 2007 California Democrats push popular vote measure Los Angeles Times LA Times staff writer Dan Morain reports on the latest move towards NPV in California. August 22nd 2007 Stacking the Electoral Deck The New York Times The Gray Lady's editorial board comes out against schemes to allocate electoral votes by congressional districts, and reasserts support for the National Popular Vote plan. August 21st 2007 A critical reform in presidential elections The Napa Valley Register The author explains how the Electoral College allows a candidate to become president despite losing the nationwide popular vote. He argues that Congress has blocked past attempts to reform the system, but now National Popular Vote offers a way out. August 20th 2007 In defense of 55 electoral votes The San Francisco Chronicle An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle cites the bipartisan National Popular Vote effort, and its 364 sponsors in 47 states in contrast to the wrong-headed congressional district proposal being floated in California. August 13th 2007 Will California alter '08 race? Christian Science Monitor The writer evaluates California Republicans' move to have the state's electoral votes awarded by district. He concludes that it is an unfair move that will benefit only Republicans, without correcting the flaws of the current system. [ Previous ] [ Next ]