If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. How we choose a president profoundly impacts how campaigns are run, the importance of swing states and an election’s outcome. It’s certainly no surprise that the Electoral College vs. popular vote controversy has sparked considerable debate. As the issue surfaces heading into November, is it time to graduate from the Founding Father's Electoral College concept, or are popularity contests no way to choose a president?
There are numerous examples of large disparities in the value of votes under the statewide winner-take-all system of electing the President. For example, Gore won five electoral votes by carrying New Mexico by 365 popular votes in the 2000 presidential election, whereas Bush won five electoral votes by carrying Utah by 312,043 popular votes — an 855-to-1 disparity in the importance of a vote.
In 2000, George W. Bush received 2,912,790 popular votes in Florida, whereas Al Gore received 2,912,353 — a difference of 537 popular votes. Meanwhile, Gore had a nationwide lead of 537,179 popular votes. Gore’s shortfall of 537 votes in Florida was less than 1/1000th of Gore’s nationwide lead of 537,179 votes. However, under the winner-take-all rule in effect in Florida, Bush’s 537-vote lead in Florida entitled him to all of Florida’s 25 electoral votes, thereby giving him the Presidency.
Next Argument
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Expert Verified
Link