Doesn't it seem wrong that it only takes 50.1% of the country to choose the President?

Question

50% is an F. It just seems wrong that someone can be elected the leader without having a minimum of 10% more votes than the runner-up. It's like guaranteeing half the country will be bitter. 50% isn't good enough for 100%.

Answer 1

interesting

Answer 2

It takes electoral votes actually. My god what are they teaching these kids today?

Sophie P: If Gore could have carried his own state. Florida wouldn't have mattered.

I'm shocked at all the answers from people who I guess never heard of the Electoral College. Stunning truly stunning. Whats more. Trying to sound smart about your incorrect answers. We can do better people.

Also we are a Representative Republic. Not a true Democracy.

Theoretically? Yeah sure you were. Most people are morons. You mean like you not knowing about the Electoral College?

Answer 3

it takes 270 electoral votes, not 50.1% of the popular vote.  if 50.1% were true, we be talking about president gore and governor bush.

Answer 4

Actually, no president has ever been elected by anywhere close to 50% of eligible voters. Only half of eligible voters even bother to vote.

It is a disgrace.

Answer 5

50.1% is majority.  But it actually doesn't have to be that high.  It McCain got 48% & Obama got 47% & a third party got 5% then the winner would have only needed 48%.  Also there is the delegates to think about- Look at 2000- Gore actually got more regular votes than Bush- but Bush got more delegates so he won.  Kind of weird.

Answer 6

Im glad I have the right to vote, I think it is fair.

Answer 7

Nope. Majority rule, remember. Bush didn't even get 50% of the votes and he won. Apparently, if your brother is Governor of a state, you can cheat your way into the White House.

Does McCain's family own the polling machines?

Answer 8

If that were the case, we would never elect a president.  

Answer 9

not even that, it's the electoral college that chooses president. A candidate may get the popular vote and still lose the election.

Bill Clinton won with way less than 50% the 1st time he ran because there were 3 candidates running (Ross Perot) so none of them got better than 50%.

Answer 10

Yes, it does, but that is the way it goes....a majority is a majority.  But hopefully more people will vote this time around and change those figures so we have more confidence as a whole.  But having said that, it is the electoral votes that count.

Answer 11

Thats not necesarily true, you can get LESS then 50% of the country's support and still become president, ie: Bush in 2000.

And yes regardless of party it does seem strange that half of america can dislike the president... I think the real question would be what is a solution, or is there a need for one.

Answer 12

That's just the popular vote.  Electoral vote is what decides the President.

Answer 13

That's only including Americans who vote.

Answer 14

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Thomas Jefferson

Answer 15

In what remains of this Republic, the President is elected by a simple majority of states. Each state's election for President is separate from all the others. The Electoral College is the means used by the states to report the outcome of their separate election to Congress.

The winner will always have a minimum of 50.1% of the Electoral College. If no candidate is able to get 50.1%, the election goes to Congress, where again the states via their representatives will settle the election outcome.

It does not matter if the margin is small or large, the beauty of the Constitution is it restricts the majority's ability to deny any individual rights, even if all the majority has already voluntarilry relinquished theirs for their "common good".

I know that wasn't taught in public school. Government schools teach that in the interest of the "common good" the majority's will trumps all others, rights be damned.

I know............. they call it democracy.

Some have argued that a Parliamentary system is better and in some countries it may be, but not in the US.

The closest the US has ever come to a Parliamentary style election for President was in 1860. Four major parties split the vote. Lincoln was elected with slightly under 40% of the popular vote. He still handily won the Electoral College.

In 1860, the Democrats split geographically when the Southern Democrats were compelled to leave the national party. The more conservative Southern contingent broke away from the more moderate Northern wing. The Republican Party was under full control of a progessive Mid-westerner (Illinois) and New England Radical Republicans.

With a possible dissovlement of the Union and a possible war on the horizon a new compromise party called the Constitutional Union Party formed. Not surprisingly that party had their best vote totals among "border" states dividing North from South as they understood if war was to come their states may be real, bloody "battleground" states.  

The result of that election was 4 years of the bloodiest war this country has ever fought. It was not the fault of the Electoral vote as even though Lincoln got only 40% of the vote he still won the "popular vote" but 60% of those who voted did not vote for Lincoln.

He wasn't even on the ballot in about 11 states.

The reason a direct popular vote and a parliamentary vote will never be workable in the US is the same.

A popular vote would more often than not put a President in office who was voted in by an actual minority of states, which in this Republic is unconstitutional.

A parliamentary vote would more often than not lead to a coalition of minority parties or a "super" minority.

An American can bearly tolerate a majority having the helm.

The Constitution requires 50.1% as no one can argue that is not a hobbled majority, which is the intent of the Constitution, even if the majority reaches 99%.

Twenty elections have had margins greater than 10%.

Twelve were clear wins of between 5.5% to 9%

Fourteen have been decided by 5% or less.

What happens after elections is always related to how bitter the losers are and the stakes at hand, real or imagined.

Answer 16

what is really takes of a majority of the supreme court judges.

Answer 17

Actually, it doesn't.  It takes 50% of the ELECTORAL votes.  Many presidents didn't get 50% of the popular vote.

Answer 18

It doesn't take 50.1%.   Get a strong 3rd candidate in there and the winning could potentially pull in only 34% of the vote and still win the presidency.

Bill Clinton didn't even get 50% of the votes for either of his wins.  Funny how people can so quickly point that Bush didn't in one election (though he easily topped 50% in the other) but complete about Clinton entirely.

Answer 19

i have a shock for you most of our presidents were elected with  24 percent of the vote of elegable voters

Answer 20

That is a majority isnt it? thats why it works that way

Answer 21

Uh, no. In a democracy, everyone has a vote and the majority rules.

Answer 22

Bush got LESS than 50% in 2000 and still won

Answer 23

that is called politics.

Answer 24

That's what happens with political parties. Everyone's so wrapped up in their stance on a couple of issues that the candidates themselves become somewhat inconsequential.

Answer 25

that's why we are bitter and cling to our guns and religion.

Answer 26

You don't even need that as far as popular vote.  You just need 50.1% of the electoral college vote.

Answer 27

THAT IS NOT TRUE. POPULAR VOTE DOES NOT DECIDE WHO IS PRESIDENT, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES.