And Bob Dole got 40.71%. Majority voted for Clinton.
And Bush, 37.4%. Majority voted for Clinton.
And Humphrey, 42.7%. Majority voted for Humphrey.
And Nixon, 49.55% - a slimmer majority in both absolute numbers and percentages than the 2000 election. Majority voted for Kennedy.
And Dewey, 45.11%. Majority voted for Truman.
In all these cases, the only thing the Electoral College did was reaffirm the majority decision. If it did that each and every time, why would it be necessary? Since it doesn’t do that each and every time, how is it democratic?
My point is in a different direction entirely, and the method of choosing the electors, either today or then, is irrelevant to it. The number of electors was designated as the sum of the number of a state’s representatives and its senators (n+2). The number of representatives was determined by the state’s population of “free persons” - here meaning white property-owning males over the age of 21, since they were the only ones eligible to vote at the time. The Southern states manipulated that number to include 3/5 of the slave population so as to ensure they had greater representation out of all proportion to the actual population of “free persons” in those states. My only contention is that the Electoral College was not a democratic institution to begin with, and it continues to prove as such when it allows a candidate who came in second to win the election.
Whether it’s a “majority” or a “plurality” is unnecessary nitpicking. The 2000 election is a clear case where the candidate who got the most votes didn’t win. The Electoral College is the direct cause of this outcome.
Constitutional amendments occur because people want change, start a movement for change, and eventually persuade sufficient members of Congress and state legislatures to pass such a change.
If you want such a change, start a movement or join one that is already out there. It’s very likely that the time is ripe for a movement to convert to direct election of the Presidency. At least your chances are probably better than ever before.
Just one helpful hint. If you continue to blather about about the three-fifths rule you will not be taken seriously by people knowledgeable about American history. I mean that sincerely. Find a new argument.
No, it’s not, which is why I posted those figures.
Clinton (1992) and Nixon (1968) both got 43% of the popular vote against two other major candidates. In 1912, Wilson got 42% against three other major candidates. Yeah, they got a plurality, but at what point is a plurality not enough? 34% in a field of three? 26% in a field of four?
The current system, flawed as it is, has kept presidential elections from going to the House of Representatives for more than 100 years.
The first presidential election was held in 1788-89. Four of the 10 states which participated in the election elected electors by direct popular vote, and two others adopted systems which combined popular nomination with a “runoff” in the legislature.
No, free persons meant just what it said–free persons (that is, anyone not enslaved). Representation in the House or the electoral college has never been based on the number of eligible voters.
Also, five of the original 13 states allowed free black adult males to vote.
And, of course, the OP was concisely and correctly answered in the first sentence of the first response.
More than likely you’re right about “free persons”, jklann, but it still doesn’t remove the fact that the slave-owners manipulated the population count in order to give themselves disproportionate representation.
And I really don’t think looking at NH or FL and blaming Nader voters in those two states really bears up as an explanation given the fact that voter turnout in 2000 was roughly 50% of the total voting population - plenty of other opportunities for Gore to get votes than by cursing out Nader supporters and saying they were giving the election to Bush. Which we didn’t.
I was hoping someone more knowledgeable about statistics would jump in here and back me up one this.
My point is that it is impossible to count 100 million of anything without some margin of error creeeping in. All processes have the potential for systematic errors, and random errors can never be discounted. It doesn’t matter who did the counting. The Federal Election Commision is no less imperfect than you or I.
So the question becomes, what is the margin of error for counting 100 million votes? If it’s <0.5%, then Gore did win the popular vote. If it’s >0.5%, then the point is moot. This is one of the reasons why the electoral college is important.
I would try to address some of your other misconceptions, but others seem to be doing a good job of doing that. I hope that you take the time to read their responses and actually think about them. Talking about the 3/5ths compromise as if it has some relevance to the modern political landscape makes you sound like a nut. Nobody will ever take you seriously until you come up with a coherent argument.
I’m sorry if this has been addressed in this thread, but has there ever been a study that answers the question, “what percentage of voters who voted for Nader, would’ve instead voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t been running, or would’ve voted for Bush, again, if Nader hadn’t been running?” In other words, can we be sure that Nader took more votes from Gore than he took from Bush?
I still don’t get this 3/5ths thing you’ve got going here, Olentzero. If you are just trying to point out that the constitution and the electoral college weren’t received from the hand of God on Mt. Sinai, but were rather devised by smart but flawed people 200 years ago, then perhaps we can agree and drop it. Otherwise, I don’t see the point. The electoral college exists despite its flaws because it was decided that way 200 years ago.
But we aren’t locked in to what the founders decided, we can change the system if we want, all it requires is a constitutional amendment. To do that, all we need is a 2/3 vote of the Senate, a 2/3 vote of the House, and ratification by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. But the trouble is that smaller states percieve the electoral college as giving them an advantage. Since the system to change the constitution depends on the agreement of the states, it seems likely that at least 13 legislatures of smaller states will refuse the ratify the amendment.
Is this anti-democratic? Perhaps so. But our system of government is riddled with anti-democratic measures that you would probably consider essential…the entire bill of rights is anti-democratic.
The other point is that even if the rules are flawed, you can’t change the rules in the middle of the election. Yes, Gore won the popular vote. That doesn’t, and shouldn’t make him president. If we had changed the constitution back in 1998, then yes. But since nobody had bothered to change the constitution before the election, we had to use the rules as they stood.
My point with the Three-Fifths Compromise is that it was an integral and undemocratic component of the Electoral College from the beginning. It allowed the Southern slaveholders to have a voice in Congress out of proportion to their actual numbers, using a number of men and women who had no rights whatsoever (since they were property). It’s hard to believe that such a manipulation of political power can somehow be made more democratic simply by working towards universal suffrage.
The 2000 election is a case in point. The key element in determining who was the winner was not how the voting population cast their vote, but where they cast their vote, ie where they lived. It’s a factor that really has no relevance whatsoever in electing a president.
Oh, and please explain how the Bill of Rights is anti-democratic.
An analogy I’ve heard for the electoral congress: Baseball’s World Series is won bby the team who wins the most games. It is not necessarily won by the team who scores the most points. And there have, in fact, been historical World Series where the team who won the Series did not have the most points (they won big in the games they won, but lost by only a small margin in the games they lost). Have you heard any baseball enthusiasts arguing that we should change the system used to decide the World Series?
**
Again, sez you. Other people disagree. That discussion, however, doesn’t really belong in GQ.
By your definition of “democratic,” it is anti-democratic because it frustrates the will of the majority. There are certain things that just can’t be done, no matter how many people want to do them. Let’s say, for example, that California holds a state-wide referendum and approves, by a large majority, confiscating property belonging to recent Hispanic immigrants and summarily deporting them packed in shipping containers. The Bill of Rights is designed to prevent them from doing so.
How is the 3/5ths compromise an “integral” component of the Electoral College? One has to do with how the president is elected, the other deals with how much representation each state gets. Sure, you can argue that the south was overrepresented prior to the end of slavery, but what does that have to do with the Electoral College itself? In other words, how does the existence of the 3/5ths compromise make the Electoral College inherently undemocratic? If the framers of the Constitution had left out the 3/5ths compromise, would your feelings about the Electoral College be different? I really don’t see how the one has any bearing on the other. bup said
I’m not convinced, but as I said, I’m no expert on statistics, so I’ll let the point drop.
That’s great for the world series, because fans agree that the game is the more important unit than the run.
However, some people feel like the will of the voters is more important than the state (even roughly weighted by population). The state is becoming a less and less important entity in American government.