Changes

But instead Florida, like most States, votes with one voice in the Electoral College by casting all of its votes for the candidate who won the people's vote in Florida.  This is similar to how the delegates voted at the Constitutional Convention, where each State had one vote based on a majority vote by the delegates from that State.  So Florida, like most States, did not split its Electoral College votes between Bush and Gore, but instead cast all of its Electoral College votes for one or the other candidate.

But instead Florida, like most States, votes with one voice in the Electoral College by casting all of its votes for the candidate who won the people's vote in Florida.  This is similar to how the delegates voted at the Constitutional Convention, where each State had one vote based on a majority vote by the delegates from that State.  So Florida, like most States, did not split its Electoral College votes between Bush and Gore, but instead cast all of its Electoral College votes for one or the other candidate.

If you set the rules for your State, would you have this type of "winner-takes-all" system?  The advantages include preventing a candidate from taking the State for granted, and causing the candidate to try to win the State rather than simply attract some votes there.  Florida gets more attention from the candidates by having its "winner take all" system than it would otherwise.  This system is similar to sports contests, where fans prefer having a "winner" and a "loser", rather than a "tie" where neither side clearly won or lost.  On the other hand, having a winner-take-all system may result in decreased attention for a state that is safely Republican or Democratic.  For example, New Jersey is a safe Democratic state that assigns its Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis, so it is a waste of money for either candidate to campaign there. Another advantage is that voting fraud in one State is less likely to affect the overall result under a "winner-takes-all" system, since at most only the outcome in that State would be affected by it.

If you set the rules for your State, would you have this type of "winner-takes-all" system?  The advantages include preventing a candidate from taking the State for granted, and causing the candidate to try to win the State rather than simply attract some votes there.  Florida gets more attention from the candidates by having its "winner take all" system than it would otherwise.  This system is similar to sports contests, where fans prefer having a "winner" and a "loser", rather than a "tie" where neither side clearly won or lost.  On the other hand, having a winner-take-all system may result in decreased attention for a state that is safely Republican or Democratic.  For example, New Jersey is a safe Democratic state that assigns its Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis, so it is a waste of money for either candidate to campaign there. Another advantage is that voting fraud in one State is less likely to affect the overall result under a "winner-takes-all" system, since at most only the outcome in that State would be affected by the fraud.

In 2013, legislatures in Pennsylvania and Virginia considered but rejected bills that would award Electoral College votes by congressional district, meaning that one vote would go to the winner of each Congressional district.  The change would have helped a Republican presidential candidate in Pennsylvania by enabling him to win many Electoral College votes even though the majority of the State votes for the Democrat.  Under the winner-take-all system, Republican presidential candidates typically win zero Electoral College votes in Pennsylvania, despite winning about 45% of the popular vote there.

In 2013, legislatures in Pennsylvania and Virginia considered but rejected bills that would award Electoral College votes by congressional district, meaning that one vote would go to the winner of each Congressional district.  The change would have helped a Republican presidential candidate in Pennsylvania by enabling him to win many Electoral College votes even though the majority of the State votes for the Democrat.  Under the winner-take-all system, Republican presidential candidates typically win zero Electoral College votes in Pennsylvania, despite winning about 45% of the popular vote there.

But Jefferson had the support of only 8 States, short of what he needed.  The House of Representatives voted again and again, but neither Jefferson nor Burr could attain a majority.  It required 36 "ballots" (voting cycles) in the House of Representatives before Thomas Jefferson received a majority!  It was only because Alexander Hamilton, working behind the scenes, opposed Aaron Burr so much that Jefferson was finally able to win a majority of States despite intense opposition to him by congressmen who were members of the opposition Federalist Party.  Departing President John Adams himself refused to welcome Jefferson or help him during the transition to power.  Instead, Adams left before dawn on the day of inauguration of Thomas Jefferson.  It was a bitter transition of power, remarkable in that it happened peacefully.

But Jefferson had the support of only 8 States, short of what he needed.  The House of Representatives voted again and again, but neither Jefferson nor Burr could attain a majority.  It required 36 "ballots" (voting cycles) in the House of Representatives before Thomas Jefferson received a majority!  It was only because Alexander Hamilton, working behind the scenes, opposed Aaron Burr so much that Jefferson was finally able to win a majority of States despite intense opposition to him by congressmen who were members of the opposition Federalist Party.  Departing President John Adams himself refused to welcome Jefferson or help him during the transition to power.  Instead, Adams left before dawn on the day of inauguration of Thomas Jefferson.  It was a bitter transition of power, remarkable in that it happened peacefully.

But a few years later, Aaron Burr took revenge on Hamilton for repeatedly opposing Burr and frustrating is political ambitions, particularly in New York, by killing Hamilton in a duel in New Jersey.  Aaron Burr was an evil man who nearly became president of the United States, and who even murdered one of the greatest Founders of our Nation, Alexander Hamilton.

But a few years later, Aaron Burr took revenge on Hamilton for repeatedly opposing Burr and frustrating his political ambitions, particularly in New York, by killing Hamilton in a duel in New Jersey.  Aaron Burr was an evil man who nearly became president of the United States, and who even murdered one of the greatest Founders of our Nation, Alexander Hamilton.

In 1804, this flaw in the Constitution was corrected when Congress passed, and more than 3/4ths of the States ratified, the 12th Amendment.  This Amendment changed the Constitution by requiring separate Electoral College votes for President and Vice President, such there would never be a tie between two candidates who were running on the same "ticket", as part of the same political party.

In 1804, this flaw in the Constitution was corrected when Congress passed, and more than 3/4ths of the States ratified, the 12th Amendment.  This Amendment changed the Constitution by requiring separate Electoral College votes for President and Vice President, such there would never be a tie between two candidates who were running on the same "ticket", as part of the same political party.