1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 45:
Line 45: + + +
Talk:United States presidential election, 2000 (view source)
Revision as of 15:35, June 10, 2008
, 15:35, June 10, 2008→Plurality of popular vote: Kennedy failed to win a plurality of the popular vote in 1960
If we can set aside the quibbling over terms like ''plurality'' and ''absolute majority'', the historical non-event of a president in a three-way race not receiving a popular majority, and making assumptions about each other's motives, may we instead note in this article that the Electoral College selected someone who had not received the most popular votes? That's a straightforward fact, and since it has only happened ''three times'' in history (including this one), it's rather noteworthy. It's not a pot-shot at Bush; it's a demonstration of how the United States Constitution puts geographic constraints on the popular vote; they did this on purpose. Also, dismissing the impact of Nader and Buchanan because neither won any electoral votes misses the obvious fact that they affected who ''did'' win the electoral votes in each state. Hint: ''nobody'' received a majority in Florida... or Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, or Wisconsin; Nader or Buchanan's supporters could have swung the election decisively ''either way'' if their candidate had dropped out. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 20:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)
If we can set aside the quibbling over terms like ''plurality'' and ''absolute majority'', the historical non-event of a president in a three-way race not receiving a popular majority, and making assumptions about each other's motives, may we instead note in this article that the Electoral College selected someone who had not received the most popular votes? That's a straightforward fact, and since it has only happened ''three times'' in history (including this one), it's rather noteworthy. It's not a pot-shot at Bush; it's a demonstration of how the United States Constitution puts geographic constraints on the popular vote; they did this on purpose. Also, dismissing the impact of Nader and Buchanan because neither won any electoral votes misses the obvious fact that they affected who ''did'' win the electoral votes in each state. Hint: ''nobody'' received a majority in Florida... or Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, or Wisconsin; Nader or Buchanan's supporters could have swung the election decisively ''either way'' if their candidate had dropped out. - [[User:JasonAQuest|JasonAQuest]] 20:21, 12 January 2008 (EST)
: First you argue that a majority is not significant, because it happens all the time in a 3-way race. Then you argue that it is significant, because the 3rd party candidate affects the winner. Which is it?
: Kennedy failed to win a plurality of the popular vote in 1960. (He is sometimes credited with a plurality, because he is sometimes credited with some southern votes that were not actually votes for him.) [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
==LePore==
==LePore==