Ron Paul supporters?...

[Herknav]

If he'd gained even half of those votes in the states that normally would have gone to the GOP, GHW Bush would have had a second term.  You need to look at those states individually to see what effect Perot had on the Electoral College.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992&off=0&elect=0&f=0

Which states, specifically, are you referring to in the first sentence quoted above?  Don't forget that ol' Billy was a good ol' Southern boy, which probably influenced some of the Southern states.

I will concede that my "all" statement above was a bit over the top.  I thought this article did a pretty good job of analyzing the election.  http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1640 

BTW--I welcome the discussion.  In all the years I've asked somebody to back up their opinion on this, you're the first one that did so, and you didn't shriek like the Wicked Witch getting hit with water.  Thank you.

[Timothy]

Which states, specifically, are you referring to in the first sentence quoted above?  Don't forget that ol' Billy was a good ol' Southern boy, which probably influenced some of the Southern states.

I will concede that my "all" statement above was a bit over the top.  I thought this article did a pretty good job of analyzing the election.  http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1640  

BTW--I welcome the discussion.  In all the years I've asked somebody to back up their opinion on this, you're the first one that did so, and you didn't shriek like the Wicked Witch getting hit with water.  Thank you.

No problem!

Take the east and west coast out of the equation, as they're normally going to be lefty anyway. and hover your mouse over the map I linked to.  A flag will come up and give you the percentage of popular vote per candidate.  You'll find that there probably isn't one state that Clinton received 50% of the electorate.  Given that the close states like MN, MI, WI, OH, IA, PA and a spread of western states that have smaller Electoral College votes, Perot was getting 18-28% of the vote, Bush could have easily managed to gain the 102 Electoral votes he needed to beat Slick Willy!  

I lived in CT for that election and I don't know one person that voted for Clinton other than my brother.  We had some real animated conversations over those years.

All I'm saying is that it's plausible that if Ross Perot hadn't flown in with his elephant ears and muddied the waters, the entire history of US politics could have been changed forever!  Instead, we have a blue Gap dress headed for the Smithsonian someday to reside next to Arthur Fonzerellis' leather jacket while paying for two decades of bad economic decisions initiated, in part, by one of the more deceitful men to ever hold the office.

And you're welcome for the lack of a hissy fit!

 

p.s.  I did read your article link and don't agree with it and I don't support the elimination of the Electoral College.

[Solus]

When I was in High School and I read about the Electoral College, I wondered what function it could possibly serve.

All I could come up with is that it was instituted as a final check by hopefully wise people to prevent "The People" from electing a disastrous president. 

I had mixed emotions about it at that time, but figured it was good to have that kind of backup.

Lot of good it did us. 

[Timothy]

Would it make more sense if the Electors were able to cast their ballots based on the District results?

My understanding as to why it was created was that the leaders of the day didn't think that the common citizen knew enough about the government to cast an educated ballot!

I see little in the last fifty years to support the contrary!  I'm surrounded by clueless, ignorant people on a daily basis!  They're not stupid, they just don't want to engage the real issues and try and effect a change.

Finding 38 states to agree on anything these days is hard enough!  Get that and you have a Constitutional Amendment to be rid of the EC.  That ain't gonna happen anytime soon...Besides, there has only been one election in the last 110 years that the EC didn't follow the popular vote!  Personally, I'm damn glad that Al Gore never became the POTUS!

[santahog]

Getting rid of the EC could happen, especially these days. I promise I'll do what I can to stop any real move to try it, though..

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

A couple things  I did not see in discussion of the  "Electoral college".
First off, reread the Constitution, The president was not elected by the population.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2

Article II - The Executive Branch Note

Section 1 - The President Note1 Note2

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

(The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

Another thing is that, at the time the above was adopted not everyone was allowed to vote, most, if not all, States had a "Property requirement", that stipulated a man had to possess property in excess of X value in order to be an eligible voter.
This last continued at least through the Depression as those "on the town" were not allowed to vote, or buy booze or tobacco.
In these discussions most never understand that the Country was not created as a "Democracy", but as a Republic, and there is a difference.
See my signature line.

[Herknav]

p.s.  I did read your article link and don't agree with it and I don't support the elimination of the Electoral College.

I don't support the elimination of the Electoral College either.  I was referring to their analysis of states that were close.

I guess my issue is that folks always blame Perot for honestly doing what he thought was right.  Nobody ever brings up the fact that Bush I lost a whole lot of support by himself.  Nobody brings up the fact that Clinton, like him or not, was charasmatic.  In my opinion, all of these had an effect on that election.

[fightingquaker13]

If you abolish the Elctoral College, you might as well abolish the Senate. They serve the same purpose, to ensure that we are a FEDERAL republic. Its a state's right's thing. Now, there are good arguments to support doing both, but I don't find them convincing. Keeping the smaller states happy and preventing them from being swamped by the large urban centers on the coast seems prudent.
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

Finding 38 states to agree on anything these days is hard enough!  Get that and you have a Constitutional Amendment to be rid of the EC.  That ain't gonna happen anytime soon...Besides, there has only been one election in the last 110 years that the EC didn't follow the popular vote!  Personally, I'm damn glad that Al Gore never became the POTUS!

After the 2000 election there was considerable sturm und drang about getting rid of the EC, with lots of "commitment" to its abolition - Hitlery was one of the most passionate about it.

Obviously it would be impossible to get all of the necessary states to do that, so the lefties followed another attack with some success. Almost under the radar, about a dozen state legislatures have changed the rules for the allocation of Electors. These states now require the electors to cast their vote based solely on the winner of the national popular vote. Different tactic, same result.

[Solus]

Sigh....it doesn't matter what system of checks and balances is put in place....they all depend upon being run by "honest" people.

And we seem to have eliminated our ability to ensure the "dishonest" are kept out.....Tar and Feathering, Hanging and Shooting them is out of favor.  More early age indoctrination.

Now days people "mis-speak" instead of lie.