Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
875
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 35:
Line 35: + +
→1992 Election
*Since in the ''United States'', Ferret, we do not elect our President's with a direct popular vote, and never have, references to who won a majority percentage of the vote are misnomers. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
*Since in the ''United States'', Ferret, we do not elect our President's with a direct popular vote, and never have, references to who won a majority percentage of the vote are misnomers. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
::Yep, realise that's not how it works. It's an interesting and quite deliberate part of the design on behalf of the founding fathers. It's not about winning a majority of the voters across the nation, it's about winning a majority of the voters in the right number of states, with smaller states deliberately getting than their proportional weight of the electoral college. I think it's a beautiful system that works as well with 50 states in 2004 as it does with 13 (vote counting issues aside!). Whether a particular president won a plurality, or absolute majority, of the vote is of interest for that very reason - it illustrates the system working exactly the way it's designed to work. Bush got the votes he needed in the states he needed - Gore did not. Simple as that, isn't it? (OK, it wasn't THAT simple, but let's not go there!) [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 05:57, 8 August 2007 (EDT)