Thoughts on the popular vote vs. Electoral College

He wasn't elected because of the 25% and plurality. He was elected because he had an absolute majority of electoral college votes. See, there's this absolute majority thing with the electoral college, which is why I ask you about pluralities.

And no, I think a plurality is not good enough in a national election. I don't care how the parties nominate their candidates - a plurality is fine. If you don't like a party because it works like that, you can start a new one.

If you require a majority (50% + 1 vote), then we become a parliament with Libertarians and Greens and Communists and Fascists able to swing the election by throwing their support for one of the candidates. In the 99/1%/2% scenario, it would likely end up being the House selecting the president, which is the way parliaments work.

 

Because there is an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY requirement in the electoral college. I asked if there were 99 candidates and 98 got 1% and the other 2% of the vote, should that election stand?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/electoralworks.htm

The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

 

We, the voters, become a parliament? How does that work? Everybody gets on a 300 million-way conference call the day before the election to decide how to vote?

Besides, our elections are rarely so close that the two dozen members of Libertarians and Greens and Communists and Fascists could possibly sway them even if they were organized.

barfo

 

Clinton didn't get a majority either time. Nixon didn't the first time. JFK didn't.

So some sort of coalition to get to 50%+1 would have been needed. That's 4 of the past 10 elections, and 2 more were barely 50% (Carter 50.08%, for one).

Nixon beat Humphrey in 1968 with less than 50%, as I said. If a 50%+1 were required, maybe George Wallace would have gone back to his Democratic Party roots and threw his votes behind Humphrey. If Wallace's voters did as he asked htem, then yeah, it'd be a coalition of we voters.

 

No president could claim much of a mandate with so little support.

I think your concept of "most support" is silly.

 

I see, you were throwing out another possible scenario for how to elect a president. I missed that.

I guess there is some merit to that proposal, lots of countries use it more-or-less successfully.

barfo

 

But your solution to the problem is to pick someone with even less support? How is that person going to claim a mandate?

"Most support" is how most people understand elections are decided. The guy with the most votes wins. It's actually the case in every election we hold in the US except for president.

barfo

 

270 electoral votes is 50% +1 support.

Clinton with his 43% couldn't claim a mandate and people could say 57% voted against him. Yet his 370 electoral votes were considerable.

 

If there were no popular vote, then the votes would be 0% + 0 support.

 

So what? What's so magical about finding a set of numbers which adds up to 50%+1?

Let's say me and my immediate family get to decide every election. let's say there are 5 of us, so if 3 of us agree, it's decided.

That's a perfectly valid way to elect a president, according to your argument, because it results in a majority vote of some group.

It's ok with you, it's ok with me. I suspect others might have a problem with it.

barfo

 

Ms. Lewinsky, what did you think of the president's electoral votes?

They were... considerable, Jane. Let's just say he was first in line when God was handing out the electoral votes.

barfo

 

There are voting rules that people have figured out over thousands of years. To use your own example, there are 5 of you, but only 3 vote, so it's 2-1. Is it a quorum?

The MVP voting uses a wholly different point system. X points for 1st place, Y for 2nd, etc.

I say your plurality rules is a terrible way to do any national election.

 

Sure, there are various voting systems.

You say that, but why do you say that? Your only arguments against it so far are (a) that's not the way we currently do it, and (b) if there are 100 candidates the winner might win with a small percentage of the overall vote. Neither of those arguments is very compelling.

barfo

 

If there are 3 candidates and one gets 34% to "win" it's a problem.

 

What sort of a problem is it? Please explain why this is a problem.

barfo