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?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
What is the definition of "successful" used here? That presidents have been elected? Can we determine with any hope of accuracy that every previous president was elected with a majority of the popular vote? Bush v. Gore proves that the electoral college system is, in fact, unsuccessful if we are serious about the "one man, one vote" principle. In 21st century America, where vote totals are available the instant the polls close, the need for an arcane and antidemocratic system has long passed. Let's find ways to get the vote to the people. We certainly should be clever enough to figure out a way.
- JackNYC September 3, 2008 4:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
I encourage you to go and do some research, read the arguments here. It's not a question of getting the vote totals. If doing away with the Electoral College would, in fact, radicalize and sectionalize our politics, would you still want to go down that road?
We're talking about a fundamental change to our system of government. Citizens owe it to themselves and their posterity to really think this through, think about the long term consequences. Just because we don't understand something when we first look at it doesn't mean it doesn't actually make sense or isn't in fact a good idea. The Electoral College is one reason for America's success; we would do away with it at our peril.
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 3:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
"If doing away with the Electoral College would, in fact, radicalize and sectionalize our politics, would you still want to go down that road?"
I don't see any basis for this statement. I could just as easily respond "If doing away with the Electoral College would, in fact, democratize and unify our politics, why would you resist going down that road?" There are "civilized" and "successful" nations around the world that elect their leaders through the popular vote. There is every likelihood that adopting a popular vote for the US president would have a positive impact on our political process; for example, increased voter participation.
Our system of presidential elections is broken. It costs too much, it takes too long, and it fails to attract the best candidates. I'm not laying all these problems at the feet of the Electoral College system. But understanding and accepting that our process isn't perfect and must be improved is the first step in searching for a better way. I would argue that renewing our commitment to democracy by giving the American voter a direct voice in electing the President is one of those steps.
- JackNYC September 9, 2008 4:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
Jack, from NYC (go figure)... your statements that represent the polar opposite of an argument you just read, do very little to make a coherent point. Similar to nonsense rhetoric like "Our system of presidential elections is broken. It costs too much, it takes too long, and it fails to attract the best candidates." Talk about no basis for statements! While 2 out of the 3 points may be factual... you have no proof that a popular vote would be any cheaper or faster (still don't know why speed is a problem, but I'll play along)! In fact I would argue that when the 27 Presidential candidates have to go through 12 run offs before someone finally gets elected with 34% of the "popular vote"... it would take longer and we'd have a candidate less representative of the nation as a whole...
This all stems from 8 years of seething resentment for the Bush v. Gore decision. If the Supreme Court ruling had resulted in a Gore win, I doubt you would retain such meaningless hatred for a system that separates us from these supposed "civilized" and "successful" nations you speak of. I could go on and on as to what over-taxed pacifist human rights violators/neglectors you would put in that category but that's for another thread.
Since I'm from Blue NJ, I can easily see the tone the elitists have developed regarding "middle" or southern America. This is why some on the west coast and northeast are so quick to snuff out the voices of their fellow Americans by wanting to overhaul our entire system in the name of democracy... I won't understand or accept what you say that our process isn't perfect. Nothing is perfect... so that's another irrelevant point. The Electoral College is the best system that exists, currently, for the best country in the world!
- t88132
October 13, 2008 5:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Have you traveled to other countries? (Say Venezuela [Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías], Iraq [Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti] , 1930 Germany [Adolf Hitler], etc.) It was the popularity of tyrants (appealing to a certain group with great promises) that pushed them to office. If its not broke then dont fix it. Alexander Hamilton said (Federalist Paper n68) "The mode of appointment of the chief magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence which has escaped without severe censure or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents… I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.” George Washington (called the father of our nation) said, "In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard"(1)
(1) http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html
- SaintElmosFire October 28, 2008 5:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Electoral College
I, along with countless others, will not be voting in this or any other election until MY vote is counted! What a sham this has turned out to be...this system was put in place with pen and paper technology. We can do better. WE THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE...just imagine where this country could be without the leadership (or lack thereof) of the last 8 years.
- whyvote November 4, 2008 2:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
I have not decided which side of this debate I support, but the fact is, EFF, your argument does not actually say anything. You stated the history of the EC and how it works, and you said it was "successful." I challenge you to define your terms of success, and show how the EC has fulfilled those terms. If "success" is not clearly defined you might as well show up to the fight and say, "Mission Accomplished."
- roy1167 September 9, 2008 11:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Well to start I think people dont give the founding fathers the credit they deserve. I am for the electoral college based on each individual state. If the presidency was held based soley on the popular vote , then if I was running for the office of the presidency I would neglect any state which did not have a large population. Ohio would never get federal funding if i was elected president , in fact I probably wouldnt care less if a giant tornadoe whiped them off the map. not enough population to make a difference in my mind. I would be directing all federal funding to the 6 largest and most populace states , and making sure they knew where that money was comming from. heck Texas getting hit by hurricane Ike no problem , I would have luxury liners picking up my constituents there. with a strictly popular vote , and a state run system. Rhode Island needs something , well pan handling comes to mind, because with a population as low as theres they certainly wouldnt get any federal help without the electoral college. I would probably just use the state to store all my nuclear waste since there population would be easily ignorable in the grand scheme of things.
yes i know im taking this to an extreme, but the way it is set up , seems to allow all the states to have fair representation within the federal government. without the electoral college why even have state and local governments, because the largest 6 states would dictate all policy for all the states. If you think about it the presidential and the senate are based in balancing the states, while congress is the only branch that has any base on population.
And both parties want whatever is best for them at the time. in 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote and therefore did not become president. while in 2004 when Kerry lost the popular vote by a land slide , he sure did fight awfully hard for recounts in Ohio so he could win the electoral vote.
- neontetra September 15, 2008 11:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
The entire beginning of your argument is predicated on the notion that the individual state results would actually matter. Every state would matter because every state has people in it. The argument you want to make is that the most DENSELY populated states, like New Jersey, would matter more with a popular vote, because the candidates could address a lot of people at once. Focus on Texas and California would happen, because they have several large population centers. Candidates would also focus on Ohio, unlike what you said, because it also has large population centers (i.e. Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati). This still hasn't addressed the term "success" which is my real objection to this argument. I'm not saying that the EC is bad, I'm saying the original argument is foolish.
- roy1167 September 15, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
My 5th grader learned about the US Government last year. One of his lessons was on elections. The founding fathers invisioned four or more political parties,all having about equal membership (power). With only 2 major political parties, we the people don't have the choices needed for the system to work.
- kath September 15, 2008 10:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
We all know that the 2000 Presidential Election was not won fair and square. Al Gore did unofficially win, and would have been sitting in the Oval Office, if the Bush family and Supreme Court had not hijacked the correct procedures. The Electoral College is an original part of the main body of our U.S. Constitution , and it has done very well through time. To say that the Electoral College needs to be abolished or vastly overhauled is like saying we should get rid of trains and railroads altogether. Even though railroads have been around for more than 2 centuries, they are still one of the most efficient forms of transportation today, and in many parts of the world, they are high-speed performers that have withstood the sands of time. The Electoral College isn't broken — no need to fix it!
- camelcityman271 July 27, 2009 7:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
This country prides itself in the right it gives people to speak up and speak out with unfavorable opinions. With the electoral college, however, it becomes useless to speak out against the overwhelming majority in a state. I live in hard blue Massachusetts, where a majority in just about every county votes Democratic when given a choice. Sometimes, I disagree with my community, but what value does that disagreement hold to the nation? Zilcho.
The electoral college shuts down the voices of those who think differently, and those who go against the grain. Those are the very people we honor as founders and heroes of this great country, and the electoral system is a great insult to them all.
- Zed December 29, 2008 7:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Because a prospective president has to win the majority of the states' votes, the electoral college ensures that the elected President has broad support across the land, rather than simply support in only the big cities with large populations. While big cities attract wealth, they also are home to more poor and more who are on welfare. As a result, a system of straight popular vote is a recipe for socialism: a candidate would only have to appeal to the poor and uneducated to win. Want to keep winning? Keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated, keep them on the government dole, and they'll keep voting you into office as long as they're getting their welfare check. A straight popular vote would mean a candidate would just have to hit the northeast, the west coast, and a couple states in the south; then the votes of people in states like Idaho and Nebraska wouldn't matter.
The electoral college prevents this. And in so doing it prevents us from falling into socialism.
- FiveBoxes August 26, 2008 5:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Electoral College
The votes of people in Idaho and Nebraska already don't matter. Those electoral votes are assured and neither party bothers to campaign there. I don't think your "broad support across the land" statement is true. The campaigns focus on the states that are close, and the issues important to those voters.
I am not arguing that popular elections would change this. It would just be a different group of voters that made the choce.
- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 4:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Electoral College
"The Electoral College moderates and stabilizes American politics."
This argument is false on its face. American politics is increasingly IM-moderate, due largely to the influence of small states where voters, using their enormously weighted votes to great advantage, have been able to push fringe elements into power. Meanwhile, those of us in the larger states, whose votes are worth 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000 of those in the smallest states, must stand by the sidelines watching election after election go by barely affected by our diminished input. I'd like my vote to be counted equally with those in Montant, Vermont, North Dakota, etc.
After we solve this problem, perhaps we can look at the 2-Senators-per-state-regardless-of-their- population issue!
- JackNYC September 3, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
American politics is only increasingly immoderate to those who don't know history. Read about politics in the 1790s or 1850s (not to mention the 1860s) and you might reconsider.
You also make it sound like the Electoral College is producing winners consistently contrary to the popular vote, which opposite reality. The Electoral College more often amplifies the popular vote result.
You might be interested in this page, especially its conclusions: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_curiosities.php
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 3:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Look, the founding fathers saw that having larger populations in some states would give those states more power. Therefore, they established the House of Representatives with a varying number of rep based on the population of the state and a Senate with 2 for each state. This minimizes the impact of population on decision making. I think we need to win electors as a percentage of the popular vote....with each state having an odd number of electors....if one person gets 51% of the popular vote in a state with 11 electors then give them 6 and the other guy gets 5. This will even out the one-sided-ness of the election process.
thanks,
Stan
- inventor217 October 11, 2008 4:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
It sounds nice to express concern for "small town America," but approximately 80% of the US population lives in urban areas. (Source: http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/42.html ) Right now, "small town America" is drastically overrepresented because of the electoral college. Eliminating it would enhance the power of big cities only insofar as it would value city residents equal to their rural counterparts, which is, I suppose, "at the expense of small town America" in the sense that American democracy gave power to the general public at the expense of King George III.
- thoughtcounts Z September 4, 2008 11:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Small states are slightly overrepresented, a prudential judgment by our Constitution-makers. The point about rural voters is that a national popular vote scheme would place them at an extreme disadvantage since the transaction costs of political organizing are so much lower in high-population density areas.
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 4:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Each Alaskan voters' vote for President counts for twice the vote of each Californian, if you divide the number of electors by the number of state residents in the respective states. I call that more than "slightly overrepresented." I call that undemocratic.
I'm having trouble with the notion that small states and rural areas will be "disadvantaged" if we adopted a popular vote model for electing the President. What is the nature of that disadvantage? Is it "real" or "perceived?" In my mind, a real disadvantage would be a weakened ability to make a case for receiving federal grants for (e.g.) infrastructure maintenance. A perceived disadvantage would be a feeling that one's state is somehow not fully represented in the political discourse, and that voters somehow count for less.
In the first instance, federal funds are granted to the states largely by formulas based on a state's population. There are cases, such as Alaska, where a state receives a hugely inordinate amount of federal funds per resident, but that imbalance is primarily the result of entrenched political interests using their seniority powers to direct earmarks to their state. To my knowledge, there would be no disadvantage in receiving a fair share of federal funding resulting from the adoption of one-vote-per-voter.
In the second instance, it might have been true at one time, when a candidate's visit, in person, to a town or county was the voter's only contact with that person and his ideas. But nowadays, when we have instant and constant information available to all of us through various means, that argument must carry much less weight.
In fact, when each person's vote counts equally, then the concept of "large state vs. small state" loses meaning, at least in the context of presidential votes. As a candidate, I would have to work as hard for the rural vote as for the city vote. And because of modern communication technology, the cost per vote metric is equalized.
This argument has gone on for over 200 years, and we're not gong to solve it here! The "meta-issue", though, is important: is the Constitution set in stone or will it evolve with changing times? I would argue that digging in our heels to keep the Constitution "sacred" will eventually weaken it and render the US, ultimately, irrelevant. But that's a different topic.
- JackNYC September 9, 2008 4:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
in response to federal grants , federal grants have become the currency in which votes are bought, large amounts of the grants are directed towards smaller population states or rural living folks, the democrats and all there farm bills and such for grants, and the republicans with there ranch bills and such. I use to get government subsidies for not farming on my land, a small check , but a check none the less. for not farming on my land. Mind you this land was 160 acres in the mountains that you couldnt farm if you wanted too.
as far as easy communications, well that debateable in and of itself. your forgetting the technology divide. living in the large city, I currently have Verizon FIOS, calls to just about anywhere are free get many tv channels, and an internet connection that just lets me rip through web sights like this one without an issue. When i lived near Mt. Shasta by Redding, Ca, it was a little different though , couldnt get internet unless it was dial up, and didnt use that because even my neighbor was considered a long distance phone call , Cable didnt run out there and being in the mountains satellite was iffy at best. picked up 1 tv station off air. and this wasn't that long ago. then you have computer owners , are you really willing to divide the haves with the have nots on this. you seem to be basing all this soley on your own means and not looking at everybody(as they say "try painting with a bigger brush".) which is also why they make the personal appearances, because they know that not everyone is capable of just turning on the tv or internet and seeing the candidate. I f what you said was even remotely true, then why whould any candidate tour at all. it would be more cost effective and easier to just slap up a web sight and be done with it. with your reasoning you have shown you have never lived outside the big city, which is why i added the haves and have nots so it would be something you could relate better too. not to mention more people react favorably to a visit in person then through other impersonable means. so by visiting a single large city you can cover upwards of a million people in just one shot. But in rural areas that same trip might only cover several thousand people.
- neontetra September 15, 2008 11:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
I'm sure someone's thought of this, but have you considered that the fact that empty states not being represented as well as denser states is not a bad thing? The fact that if you have fewer citizens in a demographic then that demographic holds less sway seems wholly fair to me.
An arguement that I can see against this: Even though there may be less citizens in a demographic, they may contain a disproportianate amount of importance to the country. For instance, and I'm not even sure to what extent this may be true (it is just an example), the number of farmers is far less than the number of people they feed, but if a candidate wants to win the popular vote they may slash wheat prices, hurting the farmers, and, in a roundabout way, the very majority they were pandering to.
- Doublecheck September 14, 2008 10:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
George Washington certainly knows better than the miscreants running the country today.
- ron paul girl November 12, 2008 3:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Quote
"Do Americans really want a presidential election system that could result in hotly contested recounts once every several elections ?" Unquote
This is entirely speculative.
A country like France had 6 presidential elections since their present Constitution was enacted. At least 3 of the 6 were very close races by the standard of American popular vote differential.
When was a recount ordered ?
And when was the authority of the President of France weakened by the close margin of popular votes by which he was elected ?
Have you ever watched an election night in France when at 08.00 pm SHARP, all TV channels declare the next President, even when the difference between the 2 candidates in the run-off is less than 1% ?
That is certainty and gives ample legitimacy.
- Views from Singapore October 13, 2008 7:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
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
With the electoral college individual votes DO NOT count in a national election. If you live in a state that typically goes either Democratic or Republican, and you have a contrasting opionon, your vote is nationally worthless as it now stands. The motivation to vote is significantly lessened. On top of this, for the political party opposite that of your state’s leanings, those issues of most concern to your state, are minimized at best or ignored at worst. In fact, the state's issues can be pretty much minimized by both partiies because in a presidential election, your state is mostly ignored so that the candidates can spend the most time and effort in those “battleground” states. Therefore, there is less interest in the issues that impact your state or the individuals that live within it.
As someone whose ancestors go back to the very beginnings of this country, it is not lightly that I consider tampering with the basics that were set up by our founding fathers, but the electoral college does not function the way it was originally intended, to protect the vote from being overwelmed by the highly populated states. It has, rather, become an advantage for those states where the opinions are more equally split. Just like our primary system now gives greater clout to those early primary states (as if many of them represent a cross section view of the country!), these battle ground states now have UNFAIR advantage in the national elections. This situation is JUST as unfair as what the founding fathers feared by allowing highly populated states to have a greater clout. The only FAIR solution with our country as populated and diverse as it is, is to return the decision to the individual and have each individual's vote count equally regardless of the state in which they live. Then our president will be chosen by the people and for the interests of the people, and no longer chosen by the battleground states, for the interests of those who live in the battleground states.
- talisgeirf October 18, 2008 11:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Popular Vote
I really feel my vote would be more watered down than it is now. Basically, Chicago, New York City and other large metropolitan areas will determine the outcomes. Just take a look at those maps of the US after every Presidential election that is broken down by county. Its more RED than BLUE and it tells a story, but not necessarily the "whole" story.
What I would like to see is the electoral college changed to the following format (Presidential Election);
1. The winner of each congressional district (throughout the US) wins that Electoral College. This would negate the winner takes all as is now in most states.
2. The two Electoral College votes for US Senators (2 for each state) could either be;
a. Awarded to the candidate that has the most vote’s statewide (popular vote).
b. Awarded to the candidate that won the most congressional districts (may not necessarily be the popular vote winner).
c. Split the Electoral College votes among the top two candidates.
The problem is; The Presidential Election is a state run affair and it wouldn't work unless every state did it. Anyway, IMO it would truly represent a refection of the whole country, not just by the masses as it is now.
Would some of the elections have been changed in recent times? Dunno’, but the data is out there somewhere...
- John Q Citizen February 20, 2009 2:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Yes, Utah has already made up its mind. What about mine? I thought the electoral college was supposed to protect the minority. I am a minority in Utah and so long as I live here my vote can do nothing contribute to the national campaign, the candidates will never try to sway me or other Utah voters, and my vote will never count. Utah has made up my mind for me.
- crunchymom September 19, 2008 6:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
As a Texan who supports Obama even while knowing my state's electoral votes will go to McCain, I feel abused and insulted by the very existence of the electoral college, and insist that it be abolished. No state is of one mind and the election results, to be an accurate reflection of the people's will, must never appear that way. We are NOT the Borg, and I refuse to be assimulated!
- Dale Husband October 17, 2008 12:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Popular Vote
So, say you were in the minority on a national scale with a popular vote. Your vote would mean just the same as with the Electoral college system. The Nation will make up its mind for you and there would be LESS chance of swaying the popular opinion. If you look back in history, many on the states we call sure-bets have changed parties within the last 5 to 10 years. Look at the current election and the states that have changed from Republican to Democrat majority. I live in Utah as well; hey, there's a Democratic congressman, what are you complaining about? As for us being the Borg. If you think we have it bad, have you lived in other countries ravaged by dictatorship, radicalism, and tyrants (say, Venezuela). It was in places like this, where tyrants reign because of popularity of campaign. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
I digress, there does need to be a compromise; the constitution is a
work-in-process. However, an alteration to appointment for the most powerful position in the world with a future of uncertainty scares me. Check out what George Washington (aka the Father of the Nation) said: "In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember...that experience is the surest standard." (1) The Electoral College, the least we can say, has hundreds of years of experience and has served the United States well. (Remember, its the United States not the United People)
Thanks for you comments BTW.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html (see verse 19)
- SaintElmosFire October 28, 2008 4:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Electoral College
The degree to which national parties have become involved in state election machinery obviates this argument. National fraud is already a distinct possibility, and combatting fraud might be easier if the rules were consistent.
Since you mention political machines, a national system would give a voice to all the staunch conservatives in IL that get lost in the volume of the windy city.
Your titanic analogy is graphic, but it has no real strength in this situation.
- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 5:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Electoral College
Fraud has to happen somewhere; that is, fraudulent votes come in at a precinct or county level. Thus it is unclear what you really mean by "national fraud." If you mean fraud with national ramifications, that is, election fraud effecting the outcome of a presidential election, then you are correct to say that it is possible. My point was not that it was impossible, but that the Electoral College most often decreases the incentives for "national fraud" and compartmentalizes it within individual states where it is perpetrated. The Electoral College is a firewall, making presidential elections more secure and reliable.
What might 1880 have been like without it?
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
But, the rules they use today are based upon the electoral results within their own state. Basing the allocation of Electoral College votes on election results outside of the state makes voting by states obsolete and immaterial. The plan put forth by National Popular Vote is just a convoluted way to amend the Constitution without doing the hard work of the Amendment process - as spelled out by the Constitution itself.
In 2004, Washington, New York, and California voted for Kerry. Under the NPV plan, the electoral votes of these states would have been given to GWB - 180 degrees out of phase with how the voters of those state actually voted. The only voters whose votes would actually count are the ones in states that voted the same as the national majority.
I don't have an issue with States that want to change their "winner-take-all" formula and apportion their electoral votes based on the elections results within their own state.
- SouthernRoots August 22, 2008 3:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Electoral College
You say: "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."
But if we dismantle the electoral college system, then effectively the only votes that count are the votes from large urban areas. Presidential candidates would only have to appeal to the large population centers and could easily ignore the voters -- and the needs -- of outlying areas. This is a recipe for socialism... and disaster.
Further, you forget the fact that we are not a pure democracy: we are a representative democracy; we are a republic. And just as we have representatives in Congress, the Electoral College are our representatives in selecting a President. They are a check and balance against a pure popular vote, in the same way that Senators check and balance Representatives in Congress.
- FiveBoxes August 26, 2008 5:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Electoral College
The author said, "Four times in our history, most recently in 2000, the candidate who received the most votes lost the presidency."
This statement is emotionally powerful, but it assumes what is to be proven. Four times the candidate who received the most -popular- votes did not win the presidency. At no point has the person with the most electoral votes lost.
"When our nation selects a leader that does not have the support of the majority of its citizens," ignores how few people actually vote.
"undermines the very principle of one-person, one-vote that our democracy is built upon."
We don't have a democracy. We have a republic.
I'm not arguing against your position. It's just your argument is full of gaping holes and circular logic.
- ChrisB April 26, 2009 7:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
There is a legitimate objection to that argument, but you have missed it completely with your future telling argument, which is truly bogus, because you haven't established why that would be a reasonable prediction. The reasl objection is, with a popular vote, battleground states would still matter more, because there are more votes to be gotten there. The votes in a "red" or "blue" state are largely decided, but there is a larger undecided population in battleground states, so candidates would focus their efforts in those places. It's nice to be the logic police.
- roy1167 September 9, 2008 11:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The purpose of democracy is not to produce results that are considered "good" or "acceptable" by you, me, or anyone else. The purpose of democracy is to enact the will of the people.
As such, the whole argument that the electoral college is better because "it works," or that a popular vote is better because it could produce better results, is completely missing the point. Election systems cannot and should not be judged by their results - that's as partisan as judging them by whether they're more likely to produce Democratic or Republican presidents. You may not want "increased polarization and regionalization of American politics," but who are you to judge what is acceptable in American politics and what isn't? The question is not whether the results of an election are in line with what YOU want, the question is whether they are in line with what THE PEOPLE want.
- Kwiz December 8, 2008 9:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
I strongly agree! It’s time for each and every one of us to finally get our vote counted. Perhaps the Electoral College was the right system for the time, but systems must change with time. Communication and the distribution and flow of information in those days were slow and cumbersome. These days, things are radically different. Too many people feel – with good reason – that their votes do not really count. The time has come for a one person-one vote system. Many more people will vote when they honestly believe that their votes truly count.
- mellis August 27, 2008 1:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Popular Vote
Can you explain, either with data or argument, why any of that is true? Communication difficulties was at best a minor reason for the creation of the Electoral College (see Farand's Records and The Federalist), so that change weighs little in the scale.
You point out a feeling that many people have, but do you know why they feel that way? Is there any evidence, for example, that people take a ballot and vote in some of the races but not the presidential race? That would substantiate your argument, but the data is exactly opposite: more people vote in the presidential race than farther down the ballot. If we were to adopt your reasoning, we would have to assume that people prefer an Electoral College system. Your argument, such as it is, suggests that we should have more Electoral College rather than less.
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation August 27, 2008 8:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
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
Better Election System: Popular Vote or Electoral College?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Electoral College
Thanks but no thanks, I don't want the East Coast, California and Florida making choices for the rest of us. The Electoral College makes our vote relevant here in fly-over country.
- arvin
August 29, 2008 4:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You already have much more say than Californians
The only reason California would have more say is that it has more people. You really think that it's wrong for the majority of the population to have the majority say? Also, you're wrong if you're under the common delusion that California is an entirely liberal state that would vote 100% democratic - not a chance.
We are already disenfranchised in Congress... each representative in the house does not represent an equal number of people, we Californians already get substantially less "say" than any other state.
Why do you believe that a few people (in "fly-over country") should be able to dictate decisions with undue weight on the east coast and California? Is your opinion more important than mine?
- lostlo
October 20, 2008 8:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
Electoral College perpetuates the 2 party system
The 2 dominant parties won't let us drop the antiquated electoral college because it keeps them in a duopoly. We need to drop the electoral college and have a national primary and run-off. 51% should be required for a president to take office. Not 50.5% and certainly not 47% + 1 intern. Meanwhile, the dems and repubs agree, keep the college. We're stuck.
- joelinda September 3, 2008 3:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
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.
What's wrong with a system that works?
I'd be curious to know why you don't like the two-party system?
A two-party system encourages citizens to work together in large coalitions before elections. A multi-party system encourages elected politicians to make back-room deals to form governing coalitions after elections.
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 4:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The system doesn't work
I'm not advocating a parliamentary system that requires post election coalitions in this way. I'm advocating a popular vote and run-off system that would allow for multiple parties to gain traction and survive. Coalitions would form before the general election and would realign before a run-off. Like him or not, the fact is that Bill Clinton is an example of a president that never won a popular majority. The majority (definition = more than half) of Americans voted against him in both elections, yet he still took office. That is not the definition of a system that works, if "majority rules" is the intention. The irony is that an amazing number of Americans that don't vote + a large number of those that do vote, still think that America is run by people that gain the majority of a vote. You and I and most of the people on this discussion board know better. I'm advocating a system that gets us closer to majority rule. The current duopoly + the electoral college = broken system.
- joelinda September 8, 2008 9:01PM
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.
The founders reason
the reason we have an electoral college is because the candidates could cry foul over the votes. we saw this with Minnesota when senators coleman and franken were caught in limbo for over 4 months debating on who won, what would happen if we debated for twice that amount of time to figure out who the next, most powerful man in the world would be? there is a reason that the founders saw the need for an electoral college, and that reason was they didnt see the need for a drawn out voting process.
- camdaddy09
June 17, 2009 11:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
CA, NY & East Coast ALREADY deciding for you!!!!
CA, NY & Big population states have more electoral votes - so if you live in Montana - you're vote hardly counts (Honestly in most cases if you stayed home from the polls - it's hard to think you're state's 3 votes will matter too much). I live in NJ - and it drives me NUTS to always read that it's a done deal here (our votes) for Obama. I'm voting for McCain - sometimes you feel like your vote didn't count because it got overpowered by all the Democratic votes in the state. The Electoral College is outdated; we live in a technology savvy world - everyone's vote should be counted. My vote for McCain should be counted amongst all the other people in the USA who voted for him, not cancelled out by the Obama votes in NJ.
- Lola September 6, 2008 6:08AM
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.
Your vote counts, either way
Under a national popular vote scheme, your vote could be canceled out (in your way of thinking) by losing the national election just the same as it is today when you lose the state-based election.
With the Electoral College, your vote counts... toward electing your state's electors. If your vote, and everyone else in NJ who voted the same way, doesn't count up as high as some other candidate's votes, then you lose. Campaign harder next time, but your vote is counted--it counts--either way.
The question is, I believe, what kind of future do you want for your country? Will you a increase the risk of factional, regional, and radical politics in exchange for this new scheme for national elections?
- Evergreen Freedom Foundation September 8, 2008 4:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is a very elitist response
And antiquated. Who defines "radical" politics? In my state, I am a radical because I am a liberal. Is that fair? The electoral college guarantees divisive politics that arbitrarily repress my voice. In a national election, everyone should matter, even if you disagree with what I want. That's a free society.
- crunchymom September 19, 2008 3:43PM
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.
I want my vote to count
Alisaterry...Thank You! I may not agree with your politics, but when I vote, I'm singing Solo; I'm not singing as part of a choir.
- richmondspitfire
October 20, 2008 9:36AM
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.
Hey, don't forget TX
We have more votes than NY and we usually vote opposite of CA, NY, & the East Coast. Unless they vote the right way.
- joelinda September 8, 2008 9:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
The Republic of Texas
We need to just secede and leave the rest to their mess anyways. With Barrack Hussein Osama, Pelosi the Poodle, and Reid the Nerd running the Country we are doomed. I see gun registration and collection, United Nations total gun ban, rampant abortion, higher taxes, more affirmative action, as well as the end of the death penalty in our future if the dems win in November.
- BigTex
October 12, 2008 6:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Broken and Ancient
It elected Bush to the presidency, despite the fact that more Americans voted for Gore.
Any Questions?
- Jefe32
September 13, 2008 6:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
We're talking about the system not one election
People point to the 2000 election as a weakness of the system and then declare "case closed" as if one example alone is enough to discredit a system which has been in place for hundreds of years. Instead of closing your mind after one bad experience, please think rationally about which system would work better in the long run.
I do agree that the 2000 vote was questionable and unfortunate. However, this does not cause me to abandon my reason and turn to the first obvious alternative without considering the implications.
- Doublecheck
October 8, 2008 9:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What implications?
I am not sure that the system would work in the long run. I think that every person should have there vote counted. I do not understand why that would not be the standard system.
You said that this system has been in place for hundreds of years. The reason that the electoral college was created was because during the first elections there was no effective and standardized form of voting. The states were better equipped to count their own votes, and because states population was a much simpler way to assign value to their votes, that was what was done.
Today, votes are counted electronically with a small margin of error. 126 million people voted in the 2004 election. Over half of those votes were counted in less than a day. With all the technology that we have today, why even break the voting down into states? What does it matter what state they live in. The reason that the electoral college is still in place is because the small states like having more power then they should compared to their size. But if states are not assigned power (only the individual) then i don't see the problem.
And as the title suggests, what would the implications of having everyones vote count for one vote be exactly? I am curious what you think would happen.
- Jefe32
October 9, 2008 7:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
There is problems with the the system...
(I recognize that’s an understatement but in a sense, the electoral college can work and be a more true representative of the country than either the popular vote and the current electoral college.
I would keep the Electoral College but award the elector votes based on each Congressional District. It’s already being done. It would be interesting to compile data from the 2000 & 2004 elections and see who would have won with a system like this one. Both elections were quite close. It would be along the lines of each House of Representative is picked. The house was in Republican control them but I'm not convinced the Presidential results would have been the same.
The problems are;
1. Each state wood have to abandon the "winner takes all" system as it is now. But, I don’t see that happening in the near future.
2. No matter how vicious Democrat & Republican parties spar together, they will combine forces to keep the two party system, IMO...
- John Q Citizen
February 21, 2009 10:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Illogical
Your reasoning is flawed. We simply don't know who would have one the 2000 election if the popular vote system had been in effect. If it had, both parties would have campaigned differently, and the outcome will never be known. It's like saying that some football games would have a different outcome if we counted touchdowns and field goals differently than we do. Any game would be played differently if different scoring rules are in effect, so such hypotheticals are never logically valid conclusions.
- tonybacci
October 12, 2008 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
vote
I would vote for a popular vote system. I currently live in a state where my vote is in the minority, and I would like my vote to count more than it does.
- Oasthad September 15, 2008 10:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
Popular vote is a Red Herring
Everyone likes to say that Gore won the Popular vote but Bush won the Electoral College. Who cares? The national popular vote is a Non-Sequiter and a red herring because it plays no role in our election system. Every vote already counts, but it is on a state-by-state basis. The popular vote of each state determines which candidate wins that state's Electors. It isn't that hard to understand. Everyone will still make a big deal over the national popular vote, even though it is irrelevant. This country is not, nor has it ever been, a "democracy." The Founding Fathers viewed democracy as nothing better than "mob rule," and wisely chose to establish a "Constitutional Republic" rather than a "Democracy."
- Nickel
September 17, 2008 7:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Electoral College Invalidates Me As a Voter
I live in Utah, where the majority of voters vote straight Republican ticket. My vote for Barack Obama in November will do nothing to help make him president, because all the electoral college votes will go to John McCain. I can do nothing but donate money to help Obama's campaign, because my vote doesn't count.
AT THE VERY LEAST, the electoral college in my state should break down by percentages, so that voters who want to support Barack Obama can actually matter. That would encourage both candidates to actually campaign here - neither of them bothered much, since they know it won't make a difference. How is that a free America? How is that OK?
You cannot invalidate my vote and still be a truly functioning and fair democracy.
- crunchymom September 19, 2008 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
Bush LOST The Popular Vote in 2000...
...and ended up screwing us over for the past 8 years. I think that's evidence enough that the electoral college just does not work.
I live in a state that is largely republican (Texas), and I'm a democrat (even though I'll probably vote republican in this election). I've voted democrat the past two times, and my vote didn't count for a darn thing because our electoral votes went to dumb bunny Bush.
- bagpiper2005
September 27, 2008 4:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
why all or none?
We could actually minimize the impact of the East and West Coast liberals if we gave the winner and loser a percentage of the electors matching the popular vote. California has like 54 votes.....you know that the Republicans can get at least 20-30% of the popular vote there so we could earn 9-16 electors instead of none.....every year.
This would force both parties to campaign in all 50 states and you know after a while you might even see some changes in the liberal/conservative percentages. The best way to support your views is to learn more about the opposition. But when the libs are only hearing from and speaking with libs there will never be a change.
thanks,
Stan
- inventor217
October 11, 2008 3:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.
The Best of Both Worlds
There is a way to change the current voting system to make it more representative of the whole US population. It requires a change to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to :
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of -Senators- to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
This change effectively gives each State, as a sovereign entity, an equal franchise in selecting the President and Vice President. On the State scale, each person would be better represented and provided more individual local power per vote in the electoral process as each voting person represents a larger group (of those who choose to or choose not to vote) on the State scale than on the National scale. On the National scale, each state would be equally represented by the electorate and have equal power in choosing the President/Vice President. While the candidates gaining the majority of electorates would still be elected, no small number of states with larger populations could control the electorate over a larger number of smaller states. There would essentially be 50 games in the election of which 26 must be won (probably actually slightly more giving due recognition to DC and the territories to participate as well). This, I believe would action would provide a more balanced representative government requiring the President/Vice President, and the political parties, to be more responsive and work towards the greater good of the entire country.
- MrJimAK
October 11, 2008 7:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
POPULAR VOTE NOT THE ANSWER
Strict adherance to popular voting will still only cause focus on the very largest states leaving the smaller ones without any campaign activity. The way to achieve broader political activity around the country would be to allocate the electors based on the % of votes received in that state for each candidate. We currently have that system in several states and it assures that the minority votes have a meaning in each states representation at the electoral college. The issue of larger states having more electoral votes does not change and it shouldn't because those states have more citizens. The ratio of electors to voters should be the same across the country.
wrigley
- wrigley
October 12, 2008 11:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Popular Vote = Democrats trying to stack the deck
As a NJ resident who sits back helpelessly while my state goes blue each and every election I should be more in favor of a popular vote system to make my vote actually count. However, given the fact that most other countries follow popular vote... and they usually have somewhere between 19-50 different political parties who can't agree on anything... I am in favor of sticking to the electoral college. If Europe is an example... give me Electoral College anyday. Popular vote is an issue that only gets attention when Democrats continually lose elections as they're looking for other ways to stack the deck in their favor. This is why it's usually the blue states, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois that want to pass legislation to give their states electors to the popular while at the same time, obstructing any attempt by Republicans in California to split up that states 55.
- t88132
October 12, 2008 3:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How to Fix the Electoral College
It's obvious that many people are frustrated by the Electoral College system, usually because they don’t understand it. It feels so arbitrary and doesn’t make sense to most people. The truth, however, is that it was established to protect us from mob-rule. No, not mob as in gangsters and thugs, but mobs as in angry masses of people trying to out-yell the rest of the people. Simply put, it was established to prevent the major cities like New York, Miami, Chicago, Las Angeles, and the like from dictating every election while the rest of the country can’t get a word in edge-wise. Our country is simply too big, and too diverse for direct voting to be successful, hence why the Electoral College was established to maintain balance. That doesn’t mean the system is perfect, however.
Here’s the solution: Instead of the winner takes the state, the winner should take the district. That is, our states are already divided into political districts due to the election of representatives in Congress. When a presidential election happens, each district’s representatives should do their job and be required to vote based on their constituency. If their district votes for John Smith, then the representatives for that district should vote for John Smith in the Electoral College vote.
This is a very fair way to provide more direct, popular voting while still ensuring the protections that the college system offers us in the first place.
- GoodThings2Life
October 13, 2008 7:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fly-Over Country
As another resident of the Midwest, I also believe it is only due to the Electoral College that candidates set foot in small rural states at all. Popular vote always sounds good, until you work out the details.
- Dirkh
October 25, 2008 11:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The United States or The United People: Nationalism on the loose!
A great document we all love begins: "We, the People,"--That's us--"of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union..." Union of what--People or States? Obviously it is talking about states. The election of President has gone from a leader of a Union of States to a leader of welfare reform structured to the passion of the people. A switch to a popular vote seems like the next domino to fall and it scares me to death. I'm by no means an expert, but the history strikes me: It seems ever since the close of the Civil War, a push away from true Federalism (a collection of states united under a federal government with both state of Federal governments possessing certain powers) to a Nationalist system (a single government directing the lives of the people) has and is taking place. (See the Civil War Amendments [13-15], Progressive Era Amendments [16-17,19], etc.) The way I see it, when they dissolve the state lines, that is when we can go to a straight popular vote because that is when it would be the United People and not the United States. With the turbulent times foreseen ahead, now is not the time to test out a drastic change in election of the most powerful position on earth. I do see the constitution as a work-in-process and times will perhaps necessitate alteration; however, I do not see a change to a straight popular vote as a wise alteration. The "Father of our Nation" in his farewell address warned about changes in government, saying that we should "resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious [OR alluring] the pretexts." He went on to say, "In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard..."(1) As George Washington would know, time, habit, and experience are vital. Sadly most Americans lack the experience to say which is better for the nation and those that do may be out voiced (I'm not saying I do).
Thanks for everyone's comments.
(1) http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html (see verse 19)
- SaintElmosFire
October 28, 2008 3:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Electoral College
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We the people are the Popular Vote...period.
People - are you forgetting that WE ARE THE PEOPLE not ELECTORAL VOTEs. If we continue with electoral voting - why would I continue to vote - this nullifies my personal vote. As for CA - you need to remember - they may be a large population vote, but because of the Dem's most of them are illegals and can not vote, therefore making that conversation mute.
I say do away with electoral and put the elections back in the peoples hands where it should be!
- Lisa1962
September 22, 2009 3:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
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.