To the libs who believe obama's policies work

[vaiboy 10+ year member]

Four times:In 1824 Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular (inasmuch as we actually have records of it at that time) and the electoral vote, but was not elected President.

"The presidential election of 1824 is notable for being the only election since the passage of the Twelfth Amendment to have been decided by the House of Representatives in accordance with its provision to turn over the choice of the president to the House when no candidate secures a majority of the electoral vote. It was also the only presidential election in which the candidate who received the most electoral votes did not become president (since Andrew Jackson's plurality of electoral votes was insufficient to prevent the election from being thrown into the House of Representatives). The election of 1824 is often claimed to be the first in which the successful presidential candidate did not win the popular vote, however it is not always pointed out that the popular vote was not measured nationwide at the time. Several states did not permit a popular vote, but rather allowed the state legislature to choose their electors."

The electors of the individual states did not vote against the popular vote in their states in the election of 1824. Neither candidate received enough electoral votes to be declared the winner so as per the 12th amendment the election was decided by the House of Reps.

In 1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes by 3% in the popular vote, and lost the EC by 1 vote -- Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina were all extremely close, and the board appointed to examine them was composed of 7 Dems, 7 Reps, and 1 Independent; however, the Independent resigned and was replaced by a Republican, so the board ruled that all three states had voted for Hayes.

This election was not decided by electors voting against their states will either. There were three states that were in dispute like Florida in the 2000 election. When the three disputed races were all declared wins for Hayes, the electoral votes for those three states went to Hayes giving him the win. You could argue the systems put in place to handle close elections are inadequate, and gave the win to the wrong man, but the electoral college functioned exactly as it was designed. There were no rogue electors changing the outcome.

In 1888, Grover Cleveland was the incumbent President, and barely lost his home state and the election to Benjamin Harrison, who lost the popular vote by less than 1%.

No rogue electors in this election either, just a case of electoral college working as designed.

And I think we all remember what happened in 2000.
In addition, there have been quite a few elections in which a few dozen thousand votes could have been switched in key states and changed the outcome of the election: Kennedy beat Nixon 303 to 219 in the EC, but got barely more than a hundred thousand popular votes more, and Nixon beat Humphrey 301 to 191, but got only half a million more votes. Nixon could have won Texas and Illinois without winning the popular vote, and Humphrey could have done the same with Missouri, New Jersey, and Ohio.

The fact is the President was never meant to be a direct representative of the people, the President was intended to be a representative of the states. The electoral college helps keep a balance of power between heavily populated states and sparsely populated states. The interests of California and New York are not necessarily the same as Montana and South Dakota, if you remove the electoral college you will in effect have a president that represents the interests of the 4-5 most populous states and ignores the interests of the rest of the nation. That's the tyranny of the majority.

Your examples while interesting don't expose any flaw in the electoral college, to they contrary the just demonstrate the system working as designed.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Don't bother reasoning with ecrack, it's been well established by rabbit and others that your opinion doesn't matter unless you agree with him. Your links are not fact but spin, his links are fact and you are stupid for having a contrary opinion. Read through his posts here, they're the exact same thing said with a few different words.

 

[ahole-ic]

Don't bother reasoning with ecrack, it's been well established by rabbit and others that your opinion doesn't matter unless you agree with him. Your links are not fact but spin, his links are fact and you are stupid for having a contrary opinion. Read through his posts here, they're the exact same thing said with a few different words.

ad hominem

 

[ace_800 5,000+ posts]

doesn't surprise me I didn't see white in none of your colors

blah fucking blah, who's being racist now? Even if Obuma was WHITE, I'd hate him still.....better you racist prick.

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

I'm sorry but ******* pulling the race card is more of a problem then racism.

 

[ace_800 5,000+ posts]

^^^winning.

 

[jockhater2 10+ year member]

thats why I don't trust our government. but i do like ron paul

 

[coolest user 10+ year member]

doesn't surprise me I didn't see white in none of your colors

It doesn't surprise me that you didn't get my point, which is that skin color doesn't impact who I dislike. And I'm black fyi, so I guess it would surprise you that I didnt say white. I'm fairly certain you're the racist here, I mean you are the first to mention it.

 

[Scratchy 10+ year member]

The fact is the President was never meant to be a direct representative of the people, the President was intended to be a representative of the states. The electoral college helps keep a balance of power between heavily populated states and sparsely populated states. The interests of California and New York are not necessarily the same as Montana and South Dakota, if you remove the electoral college you will in effect have a president that represents the interests of the 4-5 most populous states and ignores the interests of the rest of the nation. That's the tyranny of the majority.

Your examples while interesting don't expose any flaw in the electoral college, to they contrary the just demonstrate the system working as designed.

An interesting observation here is that this is a direct example of federal oversight ultimately benefitting the needs of the states I'm order to have a more level playing field. this is a a disconnect that Grover Nordquist (and the neocon movement) could never address, and thus choose to ignore.

Just like farm subsidies and social security, which are popular programs amongst 'red states', but in reality are simply socialism writ

Large.

 

[Scratchy 10+ year member]

I missed where you backed anything up with facts. You are implying the war was for oil. You are stating this as a fact, but when questioned on any kind of numbers to support your claim you say it's irrelevant. Nothing could be more relevant. If we went to war for oil we should be able to find out how much oil it is getting us. Common sense.

Are you kidding?

That's the most obsequious drivel that I have ever heard.

And I don't think you quite know exactly what Ad Hominem means.

 

[ahole-ic]

An interesting observation here is that this is a direct example of federal oversight ultimately benefitting the needs of the states I'm order to have a more level playing field. this is a a disconnect that Grover Nordquist (and the neocon movement) could never address, and thus choose to ignore.Just like farm subsidies and social security, which are popular programs amongst 'red states', but in reality are simply socialism writ

Large.

It is a farse that farm subsidies and social security are popular with Conservatives. We all know social security is the biggest pyramid scheme ever created, and paying people to not farm/work is far from our core set of values. Becoming educated on a subject before one speaks about it is paramount to one's credibility.

 

[ahole-ic]

Are you kidding?That's the most obsequious drivel that I have ever heard.

Because you can't answer the question... so you've decided to lash out.

And I don't think you quite know exactly what Ad Hominem means.

*sigh* show where I used it wrong or apologize.

 

[globalminds_ent 10+ year member]

It doesn't surprise me that you didn't get my point, which is that skin color doesn't impact who I dislike. And I'm black fyi, so I guess it would surprise you that I didnt say white. I'm fairly certain you're the racist here, I mean you are the first to mention it.

U wouldn't be the first, Yeah that's right I'm the one that's racist, if u think that this has nothing to do with race your living in a dream world lets get serious..

 

[ahole-ic]

U wouldn't be the first, Yeah that's right I'm the one that's racist, if u think that this has nothing to do with race your living in a dream world lets get serious..

It doesn't.

 

[globalminds_ent 10+ year member]

It is a farse that farm subsidies and social security are popular with Conservatives. We all know social security is the biggest pyramid scheme ever created, and paying people to not farm/work is far from our core set of values. Becoming educated on a subject before one speaks about it is paramount to one's credibility.

I don't think Michele Bachmann got the memo