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?
Four times in our history, most recently in 2000, the candidate who received the most votes lost the presidency. This almost happened again in 2004, when a shift in 60,000 votes in Ohio would have sent John Kerry to the White House despite a popular vote victory by George W. Bush of more than 6 million votes.
When our nation selects a leader that does not have the support of the majority of its citizens, we are a weaker country for it. The notion that some voters count more than others in choosing our President undermines the very principle of one-person, one-vote that our democracy is built upon.
Whoever wins the next presidential election, they will be in a stronger position to govern our country and lead the world if they have won more votes than their opponent. By 2012, we have the chance to ensure that the first place candidate winds up in the White House. Common Cause is working to make that happen.
Next Argument
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
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
