If Obama won electorally but not popularly would you still support electoral college?

This election is becoming a bit closer than many of us imagined. So I wanted to propose a question. If Obama were to win the electoral college (as the polls still suggest he leads in) but lose the popular vote (as the polls suggest he's behind in) would that change your opinion on the electoral college?

 

Not really. This can happen during any very close race. I still think the electoral college serves a purpose that benefits the minority States.

 

The electoral college is silly. Regardless of who wins, it should go.

 

How exactly does it protect minority states when 99.9% of the time the results are exactly the same no matter which system you choose? And why care about states? Isn't the most freedom when the individual has the most voice? Don't you think it's a bit disenfranchising to be a republican in New York? Or a democrat in Oklahoma?

 

I agree that the electoral college should remain. Just FYI four Presidents have been elected who lost the popular vote. Note the most recent.

John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824
Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876
Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888
George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

 

Again what difference does it really make when out of every election so far only 4 presidents have won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. And in every one of those the winner required the support from several large states to win.

How exactly does the electoral college protect smaller states? Can you explain that one to me?

 

Nope not at all since I oppose the EC and find it ludicrous that we elect every official in our government by popular vote except for the most important position in the Nation.

 

I wouldn't care. I can't vote, so it doesn't mean anything to me.

 

That is four too many.

 

i supported the electoral college even when bush lost the popular election and would continue to even if Bush had won the popular vote.. but lost the election.. same is true for Obama

when one changes support based on the letter behind ones name, then they do not really support it


.

 

what really concerns me is companies like diebold promising presidents the election... then find things like their equipment giving the other guy negative votes

I think if we were serious about our counts, we would have both manual counts AND electronic and the two would always match, at the very least two independent electronic systems that should always match (IF NOT WE NEED TO KNOW WHY)

 

Here is how I see it. We have two systems that produce virtually identical results. Out of 59 elections only 4 have had the popular vote disagree with the electoral vote. So they are about 95% identical. The only difference is the electoral system makes it so that the republican in New York doesn't have a voice. And the democrat in Oklahoma doesn't have a voice. Why disenfranchise anyone? 1 person. 1 vote. It's simple.

 

Would still support it no matter what. If you get rid of the electoral college you will never see a president ever go into small states like Delaware or the Dakotas etc. Campaigns are all about efficiency and if the election was just purely about the total number of votes no sane campaign manager is going to have their candidate anywhere other than densely populated areas. You must not have taken any politics courses because this has come up in all of mine except for my foreign relations course and by the end of the discussion most people agree that it servers a purpose.

This also extends beyond elections as well since Presidents still have to keep the welfare of small states in mind for reelection purposes. Otherwise you will have big states simply rolling over the interests of small states all the time if there is a disagreement between them.

 

Again...why would you think this would be devastating to small states when 95% of elections turn out exactly the same whether it's done by popular vote or electoral vote? No one is explaining this to me. It just seems like everyone is saying this would be bad for small states because someone told them that and they just accepted it.

 

It wasn't just accepted it was discussed over usually most if not an entire class period with pros and cons being weighed. The only real downside that is ever brought up is whether or not states should give out delegates proportionally instead of an all or nothing system like most states have now.

The single biggest factor for me at least is imagine a super close Presidential election with a recount. Could you just imagine the nightmare situation that would be having to recount everyones vote nationwide. By awarding delegates state by state you limit the damage that can be done.

 

The president isn't supposed to be chosen by the people, but by the states. Because he is the leader of the union (of the united states). Individuals are supposed to governed by their local states and therefore only elect those officials directly. Or?

 

if you'd just resign yourselves to fate and make me Emperor of NA now, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

 

Agreed. That is one of a few reason why we have the electoral college. It prevents whole regions of the country from dominating the politics of the rest of the country. We have an electoral college for the same reason we have a House and Senate.

 

If this particular case changes one's view of it but past identical cases didn't, this only shows that one can't separate their political affiliations from their ability to recognize the unbiased truth and therefore to truly be in touch with reality.

I didn't like the electoral college before, and I wouldn't like it if that happened. I won't like it no matter what happens. I don't really like either candidate but I think right now Obama is a better choice for America than Romney.

 

As an European I can't really vote on this, because it is an internal US matter after all, but it is weird. I don't really understand it's purpose in this day and age. It was brilliant 200 years ago, but now?

I feel it kinda boosts the importance of some voters in the country depending on location. If you're in Ohio, the candidates will try to get your votes and therefore maybe prioritize policies for those "battleground" states. It's weird. Somehow, if you live in Hawai or Utah, you're vote means a lot less, no?

 

It's supposed to be that way, the president isn't chosen by the people, but by the states. why? because he's the leader of a union of states, not the people. iirc

 

I suppose it's true. But in the end the people elect the president, I believe it says so in the American constitution. That's why I'm not so sure if that "electoral college" thing is a good idea these days. It somehow separates people in blue and red states. I'm not convinced that is a good idea if you wanna maintain the "union" part within the United States.

 

Well,,I can vote in NY, but my vote means nothing..If NY stopped being the welfare state that it is then it would be different, as it is it's a magnet for non contributors.....YET,,,they can afford to throw Billions away each year on cigarette tax's...go figure..

 

Maybe not right now, but you won't remain 5 years old forever.

hahaaha


jk, jk Kranes.