# Obama wins the election, loses the popular vote **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2008, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343 "2008-09-12T21:20:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343/61 "2008-09-16T01:45:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](#): > > If you really want people to have a cow imagine that Obama (or McCain) wins neither the popular vote nor the electoral vote and still becomes president. It is possible, but not probable, the electoral vote could end in a tie. This will throw the election to the House where Obama would likely win. > > The electoral college is an anachronism that exists only to give more power to lower populated states. States that already are over-represented in the Senate and even in the house. All states get at least one representative though proportionally even one is too many for states like Wyoming. > > The electoral college drives down voter participation as well. The candidates concentrate on the battleground states. States like California and Texas will be largely ignored. If every vote counted the same the candidates would have to compete all over the place. > > The electoral college has a conservative bias. The smallest states are Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska and South Dakota. Four of these vote republican in every presidential election. You could argue the DC should be in there, but as the District is denied statehood they get no representative and no senators so they are underrepresented. Oh, and in the event of a tie, each state gets one vote in the house. Wyoming is equal to California. DC gets no vote. > > Minorities within states are ignored. Talk about the tyranny of the majority. What about urban populations in Houston? What about white Christian fundamentalists in rural Illinois? They may as well not exist in our current system. > > What if a lose canon elector throws an election? That WILL be the end of the system. > > It will not take a constitutional amendment to change the system, just an agreement amongst the big states to cast their electoral votes in a block. This will happen someday. It’s just a matter of public outrage hitting a certain level. But every state does have it’s own economy, taxation, and social policies. States are important. Getting rid of the EC and going to straight popular vote would be a constitutional and logistical nightmare. Having all Elector’s cast votes for the candidate that wins the popular vote would destroy the current balance between state’s and federal rights. I think the best and easiest solution is to require all Electors to vote in proportion to their state’s popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343/62 "2008-09-16T01:47:29Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > I still see most of the debate here ignoring the two biggest problems with the electoral college: all-or-nothing states (which disenfranchise almost half of their voters every election), and the fact that the electors can vote for whomever they please, completely ignoring the will of the people. So if it was just an election where the person with the most votes wins and it is a 49/51 split those 49% are somehow “enfranchised” in your view? Lots of states have laws about faithless electors and the way things are setup even in places where they presumably could vote for whomever they wanted they almost never do and vote the party they were elected to vote for. Rarely if ever an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343/63 "2008-09-16T13:34:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So if it was just an election where the person with the most votes wins and it is a 49/51 split those 49% are somehow “enfranchised” in your view? Let’s say my state has 5 electors, and it splits 60/40 between your candidate (the 60%) and my candidate (the 40%). If all five electors are chosen by your candidate, then yeah, I’m pissed. I’ve been ignored–or disenfranchised–or whatever word you like. In that case, your candidate should be able to choose three electors and mine should be able to choose two. I haven’t seen a single convincing argument why it should be any other way. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343/64 "2008-09-16T15:54:44Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Let’s say my state has 5 electors, and it splits 60/40 between your candidate (the 60%) and my candidate (the 40%). If all five electors are chosen by your candidate, then yeah, I’m pissed. I’ve been ignored–or disenfranchised–or whatever word you like. > > In that case, your candidate should be able to choose three electors and mine should be able to choose two. I haven’t seen a single convincing argument why it should be any other way. Under our current political dynamic, a change to this proportional system nationwide would result in a net benefit to the Republican candidate, correct? The Republican candidate would get a 40% (say) chunk of California, New York, and Illinois, in exchange for giving up a similar chunk of Texas and a bunch of smaller states. In other words, the electoral votes currently tied up in “safe” Democratic states exceed those in “safe” Republican states. Here is Slate’s [electoral map](http://www.slate.com/id/2195956), for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343/65 "2008-09-16T16:04:43Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > …Here is Slate’s [electoral map](http://www.slate.com/id/2195956), for instance. Funny that it shows Arizona, McCain’s home state, “leaning Republican.” :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343/66 "2008-09-17T03:03:20Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Under our current political dynamic, a change to this proportional system nationwide would result in a net benefit to the Republican candidate, correct? I haven’t actually done the analysis to see who would benefit in this particular election. I’m talking about what would provide better representation for all of the voters in all of the election. And, by the way, it wouldn’t be “giving” 40% of a “blue state” to the Republicans or “giving” 40% of a “red state” to the Democrats. It would be changing the rules so that it didn’t take that vote away from people. Why should my vote for party X result in the selection of an elector by party Y? ---
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2008, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343/67 "2008-09-17T04:50:44Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > And of course Kansas has a Democratic governor. (Although in that case I do think it’s unlikely Obama will win Kansas.) > > Ed Heck, Alabama has a Democratic State Legislature and Lt. Governor (granted, they’re Southern Democrats, but still).If the Obama campaign could mobilize all the people who would vote Democratic in the presidential election, he would probably win the state. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view,) that base also votes proportionally much less. I am all for switching all states to proportional electors, but I think it’s more important that we change our inadequate first-past-the-post system to a [Condorcet method](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method), so we can actually make third parties viable. Valete, Vox Imperatoris [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-wins-the-election-loses-the-popular-vote/463343.md?page=3)