Ive always found this interesting...?

Question

so the united states is supposed to be a government "for the people, by the people" and a government that is supposed to honor what the majority of its citizens think, correct?

well why is it that in 4 elections in US history the winner didnt have a majority of the popular vote, but had a majority of electoral votes. does anyone see how that makes sense at all? why even have an electoral college if it doesnt always represent the view of the american people. why elect a president that the majority of americans dont want to be president

and in all reality, the popular vote is completely irrelevant, and doesnt have to matter in the slightest, since the members of the college can cast their vote for whoever they want regardless of who the people of their state voted for.

now please tell me, how does that sound democratic in the slightest?

Answer 1

The electoral college was designed to give states with smaller populations, such as Idaho, Utah, etc.  a voice in the general election, and not to allow the entire election to be decided by a few large cities.

It is a good system, and it is a needed system.

ADDED:  Yes, I am saying that the small states should have some say.  I am saying that the coastal cities should not have the ability to completely decide the general election, and that is EXACTLY what would happen if presidents were selected by the popular vote.  I understand that small states have representation in Congress, balanced by the mix of the House and Senate.  However, the presidential election would be 100% decided by the coastal cities with no weight to middle America.  That is why we have AND NEED the electoral college.

ADDED:  The electoral college was not the difference in the 1824 election.  A third party candidate took enough electoral votes that no candidate won the majority of the electoral votes, and the president was selected by the House of Representatives.

Answer 2

It does not seem fair but the smaller states had to be factored in

but I do not like the fact that can just ignore votes and cast any way they want....

Answer 3

The judicial college is a holdover from the initial elections and was created by the constitution because of the geographic (communications) diversity of the country.  It is archaic and should be disposed of but it is in the constitution and thus requires an amendment.

In actuality the "majority" you speak of is statistically insignificant.  In these cases the amount of people who don't get what they want is virtually identical to the "happy" voters when you figure in counting errors and fraud.

Like any good system it occasionally trips over itself.  You are free to emigrate to a variety of systems that meet your definition of democracy.

Answer 4

You obviously fell asleep in your Civics class.  Read the Constitution and it will tell you all about the Electoral College.  U.S. History will tell you why the Founding Fathers put the Electoral College into the U.S. Constitution.  

And, there have only been two elections where the Electoral College elected a President who did not win the popular vote, 1876 (Tilden vs. Hayes) and 2000 (Bush vs. Gore - although three very liberal newspapers tried to show that Gore won Florida and all conceded that Bush won Florida).

Answer 5

It's the same farce in the UK where a party is elected to government based on the number of MPs elected and overall do not have a majority of the votes actually cast. Once in power they will do anything to stay there. Most politicians are liars, hypocrites and thieves as is becoming more and more obvious here with the revelations regarding expenses under the Freedom of Information act.

Answer 6

We're not a democracy, we're a republic.

Democracy is infantile..