Skip to main content
21 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 7, 2020 at 19:44 comment added Itsme2003 The question seems to be filled with unfounded and biased assertions. As an example: "The system doesn't do anything to provide the protections originally envisioned." The system actually still does a lot to accomplish the original goal of keeping a few high-population states from dominating the presidential elections.
Nov 11, 2016 at 16:49 comment added gerrit @user2590 And no candidate visits Hawaii or Utah now because those are safe for one party…
Dec 18, 2014 at 19:01 comment added Oldcat It isn't supposed to support the will of the people, but the will of the states. You have to win states, with a slight extra boost to the less populous ones.
Aug 3, 2013 at 0:14 comment added user2590 -1 "the system doesn't do anything to provide the protections originally envisioned." Patently False. Bad Question: No presidential candidate would ever visit Iowa or New Hampshire were it not for the electoral college. Yet they are two important states in the Presidential election because of the Electoral College. No reform needed.
Feb 15, 2012 at 12:39 vote accept Bill Nace
Feb 15, 2012 at 12:38 vote accept Bill Nace
Feb 15, 2012 at 12:39
Feb 15, 2012 at 12:37 vote accept Bill Nace
Feb 15, 2012 at 12:37
Feb 14, 2012 at 21:12 answer added David W. timeline score: 2
Feb 13, 2012 at 12:52 history edited MichaelF
edited tags
Feb 4, 2012 at 21:34 comment added canadiancreed @MichaelF Sadly it's not the only system that has that issue. For example, if a party here got a majority in Ontario and Quebec, they're almost certain to be the party in power even with 80% of the provinces not voting for them. The joys of preportional representation.
Feb 4, 2012 at 18:50 answer added ihtkwot timeline score: 14
Feb 3, 2012 at 14:34 comment added MichaelF @duffbeer703 I will respectfully disagree with you here.
Feb 3, 2012 at 14:27 comment added duffbeer703 @MichaelF Not necessarily. All of those states have diverse interests and issues beyond the big cities. In 1984, NYC was a democratic stronghold, but the State of New York as a whole voted for Reagan.
Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 comment added MichaelF Yes, but that is the problem with the EC, you can win a majority in 13 states and become President. That is hardly representational of ALL the people. Strangely, those thirteen can encompass the states of all the cities you mention, so basically your scenario already happens.
Feb 2, 2012 at 20:32 comment added Dunk I like the electoral college. Someone shouldn't become president simply because they managed to cowtow to the people in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles which is what would happen without the EC. The president is supposed to represent all the people, without the EC then only the people in the city would be represented.
S Feb 2, 2012 at 14:03 history suggested o0'.
tag ts --> usa
Feb 2, 2012 at 13:33 review Suggested edits
S Feb 2, 2012 at 14:03
Jan 30, 2012 at 14:04 answer added duffbeer703 timeline score: 14
Jan 30, 2012 at 9:57 comment added MichaelF This is a pet peeve of mine and while I wish there was a significant effort for reform there really hasn't been and with both existing parties entrenched in the current system I would not expect one. Not without a significant event that would cause people to seriously question the existing system and then maintain interest in changing it. Considering that we've already had 3 instances where the results of the EC were different than the popular vote I don't expect it.
Jan 30, 2012 at 8:28 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/163901468137631744
Jan 28, 2012 at 21:29 history asked Bill Nace CC BY-SA 3.0