Why was 2000 so close?

[Space7]

When you look at the fundamentals, you'd think Gore should have coasted to victory. Unemployment was low, satisfaction with the country was historically high, and Gore's boss, Clinton, was incredibly popular. At a time when people are generally satisfied with the country and its leadership, wouldn't the majority of voters want to stick with the status quo and elect Gore, hoping he would be like Clinton's third term? That's what happened with Bush in 1988, and Reagan was actually more unpopular than Clinton at that time? So what gives??

Bush won because of the United State's voting system.

More people voted for Gore than Bush. Therefore, more people wanted Gore to be president. I won't pretend that I don't have very ill feelings towards the United State's pre-Industrial Revolution era voting system.

So in a way, Gore did win, just not the presidency.

In any case, I think a recount in Florida wouldn't have likely changed the outcome, I think Bush did legitimately win the election, but... well 537 votes isn't much, and the list of controversies over at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000), doesn't exactly lead me to believe that the outcome was entirely fair.

Not that fairness is part of the equation.

[Space7]

When you look at the fundamentals, you'd think Gore should have coasted to victory. Unemployment was low, satisfaction with the country was historically high, and Gore's boss, Clinton, was incredibly popular. At a time when people are generally satisfied with the country and its leadership, wouldn't the majority of voters want to stick with the status quo and elect Gore, hoping he would be like Clinton's third term? That's what happened with Bush in 1988, and Reagan was actually more unpopular than Clinton at that time? So what gives??

Bush won because of the United State's voting system.

More people voted for Gore than Bush. Therefore, more people wanted Gore to be president. I won't pretend that I don't have very ill feelings towards the United State's pre-Industrial Revolution era voting system.

So in a way, Gore did win, just not the presidency.

In any case, I think a recount in Florida wouldn't have likely changed the outcome, I think Bush did legitimately win the election, but... well 537 votes isn't much, and the list of controversies over at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000), doesn't exactly lead me to believe that the outcome was entirely fair.

Not that fairness is part of the equation.

Our voting system protects us from the majority. We as the U.S. hold that the majority can be wrong and dangerous. Unless it's so overwhelming that it's best for almost every single person, things shouldn't be just decided by politicians who live in D.C.

Indeed a majority can be wrong and dangerous. When one party holds all the power to do anything they want clearly there's a problem.

But I'm not suggesting you abolish the House and the Senate and just leave everything to the President. You will continue to be protected from a total majority by the two houses. The only change would be that the president will be elected based on whether more people voted for him/her than the other! Simple!

You may want to explain what you mean by "it protects us from the majority". What aspect of the Electoral College is protecting you from the majority?

[Space7]

What I mean is that by having an Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win and therefore we aren't a majority rules country. If we were a majority rules country at the presidential level, then the next step is having elections every few weeks to vote on legislation because people don't agree with or approve of all of their representatives. At that point we're in danger of becoming a real democracy which is a perverted form of government being that there is no structure to the process. People would get whatever they want all the time which sounds nice but if you think about it, it's also dangerous. Another thing about a true democracy is that law enforcement would become a problem. Imagine trying to enforce laws that are constantly changing. It would be much harder to keep up with laws too. Our legal system would perish. The majority can become a mob if there isn't a government where people are represented as the United States does. Abolishing the Electoral College would start a dangerous slip and slide as well as turn the Presidential Election into a popularity contest. What we have now is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people rather than a majority rules.

So your point is, condensed:

-The candidate with the most votes doesn't win [in electoral college system]

-Proportional representation could lead to a dangerous slip and slide where your legal system collapses, everyone would be making all the laws they wanted, and in general it would suck.

Please, take a moment to look at Sweden.

Look at Norway.

Look at Germany.

Look at Switzerland.

They are relatively prosperous, peaceful, happy countries with decent economies, and they are not in chaos. They all use proportional representation.

Don't worry.

You are still protected from the majority by the House and the Senate.

Besides, you don't have to worry because it is exceedingly rare that the party with less votes wins the election. All rep-by-pop is doing is removing that chance.

So really, you won't notice much change at all.

It's only making the election fairer for people who don't live in swing states.

[Space7]

What I mean is that by having an Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win and therefore we aren't a majority rules country. If we were a majority rules country at the presidential level, then the next step is having elections every few weeks to vote on legislation because people don't agree with or approve of all of their representatives. At that point we're in danger of becoming a real democracy which is a perverted form of government being that there is no structure to the process. People would get whatever they want all the time which sounds nice but if you think about it, it's also dangerous. Another thing about a true democracy is that law enforcement would become a problem. Imagine trying to enforce laws that are constantly changing. It would be much harder to keep up with laws too. Our legal system would perish. The majority can become a mob if there isn't a government where people are represented as the United States does. Abolishing the Electoral College would start a dangerous slip and slide as well as turn the Presidential Election into a popularity contest. What we have now is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people rather than a majority rules.

So your point is, condensed:

-The candidate with the most votes doesn't win [in electoral college system]

-Proportional representation could lead to a dangerous slip and slide where your legal system collapses, everyone would be making all the laws they wanted, and in general it would suck.

Please, take a moment to look at Sweden.

Look at Norway.

Look at Germany.

Look at Switzerland.

They are relatively prosperous, peaceful, happy countries with decent economies, and they are not in chaos. They all use proportional representation.

Don't worry.

You are still protected from the majority by the House and the Senate.

Besides, you don't have to worry because it is exceedingly rare that the party with less votes wins the election. All rep-by-pop is doing is removing that chance.

So really, you won't notice much change at all.

It's only making the election fairer for people who don't live in swing states.

I understand what you're saying. The U.S. is too big for what Norway, Germany, and Switzerland do though. Amongst the world, each state could be its own country. Aside from being a representative republic, we're also a nation of states and abolishing the Electoral College would hurt state sovereignty.

This point you made makes more sense than the other one.

It's true that it might hurt state sovereignty a bit, because the president would be decided by the nation as a whole rather than each individual state.

But that's not to say that Proportional Representation "wouldn't work" in the US just because you're much larger than all of those European nations.

Again, it's a fairly small change; you wouldn't likely notice any difference after a while. The vast majority of the time whoever wins the popular vote also wins the electoral vote.

I consider it a worthy trade off. To give every Republican in California, New York, Hawaii, and Illinois a voice. To give every Democrat in Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Kansas a voice.

To ensure that the "one person, one vote" principle is a force. So a person in Texas doesn't have a fraction of the voting power of a person from Vermont.

Surely that's worth giving up a little bit of state sovereignty? Some state pride?

To vote as a nation, rather than as a state?

I mean, I understand your concern, but please, just remember most of your fellow citizens of your country don't have the fortune to live in a swing state. Just consider it.

[Space7]

We all have voices though. It's just that sometimes the candidate you vote for loses. All voters have the power to vote for the candidate who they want to carry their state's electoral votes.

Good, I see you've brought up the most most viable of all the electoral college supporter's arguments. This is the most known and most simple argument. Summed up, the argument is:

Everyone gets a vote which will help to decide who the president is.

And at face value, the argument is correct.

The thing is, each individual voter in swing states are exceedingly more likely to determine who the president will be, and therefore, their vote counts for more. Hence why the parties spend the vast majority of their campaign money in these states.

But you know what? Your point isn't wrong, and so I have compiled a list of pros and cons of proportional representation.

Cons:

...the next step is having elections every few weeks to vote on legislation because people don't agree with or approve of all of their representatives. At that point we're in danger of becoming a real democracy which is a perverted form of government being that there is no structure to the process. People would get whatever they want all the time which sounds nice but if you think about it, it's also dangerous. Another thing about a true democracy is that law enforcement would become a problem. Imagine trying to enforce laws that are constantly changing. It would be much harder to keep up with laws too. Our legal system would perish...

(May lead to dangerous slip and slide that destroys whole legal system, among other things?)

We all have voices though. It's just that sometimes the candidate you vote for loses. All voters have the power to vote for the candidate who they want to carry their state's electoral votes.

(If it isn't broken don't fix it principle)

The U.S. is too big for what Norway, Germany, and Switzerland do though. Amongst the world, each state could be its own country. Aside from being a representative republic, we're also a nation of states and abolishing the Electoral College would hurt state sovereignty.

(May hurt state sovereignty)

Pros:
-Eliminates chance of electing a president without having more vote than the other candidate.

-Eliminates chance of depressed voter turnout in non-swing states.

-Eliminates "winner takes all" system in most states. e.g. Barely winning is the same as winning by a massive margin.

-Makes sure everyone's voice weighs the same (this is key)


So some of your points are certainly not incorrect, I just think that we might have to look at the lesser-of-two-evils principle here.

Feel free to add to the list or refute points.