The Electoral College

[Gustaf]

Jfern really can't argue coherently...

Someone once made an interesting point on this, don't remember who though.

If a candidate gets 51% of the vote in states holding 51% of the EVs and his opponent gets 49% in those states and then 70% in all the other states, who had the broadest geographical appeal? The guy who got at least 49% everywhere or the guy who never got above 51% and slumped to 30% in large parts of the nation?

I should add that I'm undecided myself on the issue, but leaning towards reform in the direction of more democracy rather than federalism. I feel that the US is too much of a nation, rather than a federal being comprised of many national entities, to justify the kind of infringements on democracy currently in place. And yes, the senate should probably be reformed as well.

[Gustaf]

Emsworth, while I admit that my scenario was extreme that was only to underline a point. Generally, if candidate A wins the popular vote while losing the electoral vote it indicates that candidate A did better in the areas he lost than candidate B did in the areas he lost. And that could be viewed as showing broader geographical appeal.

[Gustaf]

But the discrepancies usually occur when both the electoral and popular votes are close. I belive the Gore states in 2000 held more people than the Bush states did. In that sense there is no real support for Bush having support from wide segments of society.

[Gustaf]

Jfern, would you please not view everything as partisan battles? Emsworth is a constitutionalist kind of guy, he looks at it from a legal perspective.

[Gustaf]

Jfern, your reasoning makes no sense. Do you really think that the law should have been ignored just to suit your partisan preferences?