NO it's not tough luck, it's ridiculous. Democracy is of the people, not of the electors. The popular vote should always carry more weight b/c they are the actual people.
You can't force people to vote. If they don't vote that's their problem, not the governments. I'm sure there are many people that think the popular vote is what they go by, that didn't have them all running to vote in previous elections. People don't vote because they don't see a difference in the parties/candidates or they just don't care. I don't see amending the Constitution changing that. It would, however, make campaigning hell for the candidates. Not that I have problem with that.
Democracy is for people. People should vote. All that should matter is popular vote as in every other election in the US.
The Electoral College was was put in because the founding fathers didn't trust the American People to make informed decisions. At the time, most people knew nothing about either candidate and thus couldn't make any sort of wise choice. Unfortunately, I think the American People are still to ignorant to make a good decision on their own. That's the only reason I could see why Gore got the popular vote, and that's the only reason I can see that anybody would like Kerry. Disliking Bush is a different story.
The Electoral College isn't perfect, however it is something that is needed in this country. It is used to keep politicians from just focusing on major cities and makes the presidential candidates focus on not just appeasing people living in major cities but on inssues that relate to the suburban and minorites. In the 2000 election even though Bush lost the popular vote by 543,895 votes he won 10 more states than Gore. 60% of the US states felt that Bush. The only reason that Gore was even close to Bush in the popular election was because he won the bigger states by a bigger margin. In california ( the most populous state) by 1,283,638 votes and in New York he won by a margin of 1,531,833 votes. If you compare this to the largest states that Bush won in Texas he won by 1,367,521 and in Florida he won by 930 votes. If you add those up in the 2 most populous states that Gore won he had a total of 2,815,471 and in the two most populous states that Bush won he recieved a total of 1,368,451. Gore recieved roughly 1,500,000 more votes in his most populous states than Bush in his. All information from cnn.com . I do believe that the Electoral College needs to be reformed from a winner-takes-all platform to where the candidate recieves the percentage of electoral votes, of that state, is the same as the popular vote percentage that candidate recieved. In 1992 Ross Perot recieved 18.91% of the popular vote yet 0 electoral college votes. I believe that was a travesty that needs to be changed.
These leftists who now hate the republicans can't stand it because we live in a republic not a democracy. Its funny how no one had a problem with it for 200 years until the 2000 election. I hope Kerry wins just so all of these bleeding heart liberals can enjoy life and stop attacking other Americans. Its really old dealing with these ppl. Lottery, You do realize that your voting for the richest ticket ever in Kerry and Edwards and do you really believe they will do something to improve your life?
I concur with The Gimp's assessment that, while not perfect, the Electoral College beats straight-up national popular vote by a mile. People who argue against the Electoral College by saying it's undemocratic and not a direct vote are being very disingenuous. It is very democratic and it is a direct vote for President. But instead of voting as one nation for President, we vote on a state-by-state basis. I am kinda intrigued by the idea of proportional representation or a district assigned Electoral College (we vote on electors by Congressional district, with two electors for the whole state, just like Senate), at least with the very large states. 48 of the 50 states have "winner-take-all" EC rules and that does allow for the possibility of winning the EC but losing the national popular vote (like in 2000, where Gore won California and New York by wide margins but lost key battleground states like Florida and Tennessee in very tight races) Making the EC a proportional or district based system would: -open the election up more to third parties, and help them get a foothold in presidential politics -be more representative (though not completely) of the popular vote -make one-party states more competitive again (it would give the Democrats more of a foothold in the South, but it would also let Republicans back into California and New York, so in my opinion, neither party gets overly screwed by this; it'll all even out). However, there are problems with this system too. It would STILL be possible to win the popular vote but lose the EC and the Presidency, and anytime this happens, the loser will whine (but Democratic losers would probably whine more than Republican losers, since Republicans tend to honor the EC more period) and it would also transfer more power to heavily populous states. It would especially encourage block voting, by regional interest groups as well as racial minorities, and would make Congressional re-apportionment even more high stakes and gerrymandering more controversial. These days, so many districts are designed to A) protect the incumbent, B) protect the party in power, and C) bolster minority representation, that if EC went to district-wide system, we'd probably see the end of competitive presidential elections right along with competitive congressional elections. Proportional representation would avoid that problem, but if a third party arises, the possibility of an EC run-off, to ensure a majority mandate, might need to be discussed. The point is, each system is gonna have problems, and you risk opening a pandora's box by changing it. While our system is not perfect, it has ensured a stable, representative republic for over 200 years. So it can't be that bad. And I would be very cautious and deliberate about changing anything about it. Don't pitch a fit about the system just because the your team doesn't win, either.
Also, if you move to just a direct popular vote we get into the water of a pluraristic democracy vs. a majority democracy and if we choose that we want a majority democracy then that means that an election would be forced upon 2 people, so that one person gets a majority vote. If we choose a pluraristic democracy that opens it up to many candidates, however a majority of the people would not have voted for the winning candidate, as plurality means you recieve at least 1 more vote than your competitor. In a proportional electoral college it would incorporate the popular vote more and would be more indicative of the general publics view on a candidate.
All you republicans blab on and on about bringing democracy abroad and restoring it here at home but then can support an undemocratic system such as the electoral college. Democracy: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority How can the national vote not weigh more than anything else including the electoral college. I might could take it if atleast it wasn't a winner takes all system but proportionalized. It's not that way though. The system has to be changed or we are being hypocritical when we go out teaching other nations of our country's democratic ideals.
