Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?
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?
The Electoral College Minimizes the Impact of Fraud and Error
Never let the thuth come in the path of a good story
First, the 2000 election WAS stolen.. never forget this.
Al Gore got about half a million votes more than G.W. Bush.
Next, your 2 main arguments don't stand any chance against a statistical and logical analysis.
"Under electoral college system, stolen votes impact the election only if they are stolen in the right location"
Given the number of polls available and sophistication of vote analysis per category of population, it is not difficult at all to predict which races will be "toss-up" and it takes so much less effort to reverse a 5,000 votes difference than a 500,000 one. To fraud to the extent of 500,000 votes would require a nationwide concerted action. What are the chances of keeping this effort under cover ?
And the recount argument is also extremely weak.. Who would ask for a recount against such a huge difference ? However, when you're faced with a defeat and you know that a small amounts of votes (less than 1000) would reverse 10% of the Electoral college votes your candidate needs, it is how so tempting, even without a good cause.
- Views from Singapore October 11, 2008 5:23PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.