In all but two states, the popular vote determines how the electoral votes are to be cast. For example, since Gore won the popular vote in Illinois, then all the electors should, in theory, have voted for Gore. Of course, there's no law that prohibits faithless voting, but I don't think faithless voting is what caused Gore to lose the electoral college. So why exactly did Gore lose the presidential election in 2000?
2006-11-09 04:46:06 · 13 answers · asked by Thegrip 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The Electoral College system is a winner-take-all BY STATE. Each state's electoral votes are determined independently of the other states.
As others have pointed out, Gore won the popular vote in the country as a whole, but lost the Electoral vote.
The Electoral vote came down to Florida's votes (if you discount Florida, neither side had enough electoral votes to win). Florida was determined for Bush.
This is why the Electoral College is such a horrible system; the person that more people actually want as president can loose.
Since each state is determined independently, it's easier to steal an election.
Republicans couldn't have prevented enough Democrats -- in the country as a whole -- from voting to have stolen the race, if the popular vote decided things, but they were able to prevent enough Democrats in Florida from voting to steal that state, and that's all they needed to do.
(I have opposed the EC as long as I've known of its existence. People who argued with me about it would always end by saying that it would prevent a demagogue from taking power. I've long wanted to call each of them up and ask, "So, how's that working out for you?" since what it did was enable a demagogue to take power.)
2006-11-09 06:58:53 · answer #1 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Here is how the electoral college works. It is divided into areas of the state. so lets say a state has 17 electoral votes,and one candidate wins nine of the electoal votes while the other wins eight the person who won nine gets them all. Even if the person who won the eight electoral votes won ereas that are more populated,and got more votes. It goes strictly by how many electoral areas you won not by the popular vote. The 2000 election is not the first time that it has happened in America it happened two other times in the presidential race in America that the person elected won the Electoral vote,but not the popular. So it's not a conspiracy just a flawed system, but you are probably right the electoral votes should go to whoever wins the state not seperated by areas
2006-11-09 04:58:15 · answer #2 · answered by Carl The green's keeper 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best way to think about this is that in states that Gore won, he tended to win by larger margins, while Bush's wins were closer contests. The result is that Gore's popular votes were heavy in states where they weren't needed as badly.
Actually, the 1860 election is an even more blatant example. Lincoln won 40% of the popular vote against three other candidates. However, even if everyone who didn't vote for Lincoln had voted for the same person, Lincoln would still have won. This is mainly because Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in a large number of Southern states, while Lincoln's majorities in the North were not as lopsided.
Hope that helps.
2006-11-09 05:00:24 · answer #3 · answered by Ѕємι~Мαđ ŠçїєŋŧιѕТ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's winner take all as to each state. Popular votes that exceed the majority in each state don't get any more electoral votes for the candidate. For example, if Gore got 3 million votes in New York and that was the majority, he wouldn't get any more electoral votes if he got 1 million more popular votes in that state. If those additional million votes were spread out over a few sparsely populated states in the Great Plains, he would have gotten more electoral votes. The person with the majority of the electoral votes wins.
2006-11-09 04:53:27 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The states' electors are chosen by the popular vote. However, the number of electors in each state varies by population. And, electors are selected by their Congressional Districts. So, even if "heavy" states go one way, and "light" states, which there are more of, go another, then the electors cast their ballots according to their congressional districts' popular votes... Also, the electors are NOT bound by any rules to cast for the popular votes in their particulr states. Al Gore, contrary to popular belief, did NOT win the popular vote. Therre was so much fraud in Florida, for example, in the recount that some of the DEMOCRAT count watchers were actually caught removing ballots from the counting rooms. Interestingly enough, all the ballots were ballots that cast votes for George W. Bush. The Dade County results were subject to rejection because the county clerk took a vacation (clear dereliction of duty) when she should have been certifying the county ballots, and did not return until AFTER the vote certification deadline had passed. These tactics, along with the CBS-announced Florida win BEFORE the polls had closed in Pensacola, caused the ruckus in the first place. Nearly 100,000 voters decided to NOT vote because of that announcement.
Of course, Al Gore's campaign was run by Chicago's Mayor Daley, who is the proginy of the original crooked election campaigns and voter fraud.
2006-11-09 05:02:34 · answer #5 · answered by Roosterkroozer 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The final tally, which matters for winning, is who gets the most electoral votes.
Winning the popular vote in a state, all but guarantees the electoral votes then go to that candidate. However, once the electoral votes are given, the popular vote fades away, except in memories of those feeling disenfranchised.
The problem arises when a candidate wins the popular vote in a state by a considerable margin and loses the popular vote in another state, with a similar number of electoral votes to grab,by a slim margin. You can then see how the candidate gets a large majority of popular votes, from those two states, but receives no more electoral votes.
If this occurs enough times, those extra votes giving someone like Gore more votes than he needed to get the electoral votes in a state, that carryover of extra votes is lost. Those extra votes would have given him the majority in another state, if he could have transferred them there, to get their electoral votes too. But, the electoral college is designed to avoid just that kind of carryover.
The electoral college has reasoning much like the Senate. No matter how large or small a state, they each get 2 Senators. That ensures that large metropolises do not have the say in EVERYTHING. The House, on the other hand, is set up to give those states with more numbers, more say. The number of House members varies and is redrawn with new census numbers, which occur every 10 years.
States with more people get more people in the House of Representatives. (Congressmen & women)
The popular vote is like the House. One person, one vote. But the electoral college gives votes to each state according to whether the majority of that state voted for the candidate. It is really not at all as harsh on numbers as the Senate, for the numbers of electoral college votes vary by population of the state. But it does keep the decision of the state from DIRECTLY overlapping into another state with that stop of carryover popular votes. Large states get more electoral college votes, but they cannot give that million vote winning margin to another state where the candidate only needed 500 more votes to win the electoral college vote there too.
Campaign managers study, not only how to win masses of people, but how to position themselves to win them where it counts most.
That was why Ohio and Florida were so important. The electoral college votes were even enough through the votes counted up to Ohio & Florida, that it was anyone's win. The few votes here and there would tip the ENTIRE state's electoral college votes, making the election seem less close by those votes than it really was with popular votes. It was a winner take all schenario. With Gore & Bush so even, Florida became the tipping point. With Kerry, it happened with Ohio.
Gore & Kerry would have been fully aware of the process. For Gore to NOT have demanded a full recount of the ENTIRE state of Florida was a gross misjudgement. Under the circumstances, that was not a state that would lean to fairness toward Gore. Strict, supervised recounting of the entire state was in order. The entire election pivoted on that count. But, Gore asked for only a partial recount. Later discrepancies would not be counted from other areas of the state.
Kerry folded almost immediately in Ohio. Edwards wanted a full recount, having learned from Gore & Florida. But Kerry prevailed. He still had his job in the Senate, while Edwards gave up his to run.
Hinging an entire election of the President of the United States on a few hanging chads in one state served to undermine the faith of many voters in the probability of their vote counting. Others took it to mean their vote had never been more important.
The justness of this system has been much debated over the years. With good cause.
2006-11-09 05:38:48 · answer #6 · answered by Dee M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no not necessary.
Just because one has the "popular vote" doesn't mean they will win it all.
California has more residents than Ohio but each state has a certain amount of votes to give.
Even though Gore won a certain state...people still voted for Bush and vice versa.
Bush won more states, but some of the states had fewer people living in them than the states that Gore won.
it all has to do with population as a whole not state by state really.
2006-11-09 05:07:55 · answer #7 · answered by ♥Brown Eyed Girl ♥ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you win a few states by a large margin, but lose most by a few hundred votes, you can win the popular vote but lose the electoral one. and BTW, Bush v Gore was not the first time that happened. it also happened in the 1876 elections when Rutherford B Hayes lost the popular vote but won the EC vote
2006-11-09 04:53:37 · answer #8 · answered by kapute2 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Electoral college members are not required to follow the popular vote.
2006-11-09 04:53:48 · answer #9 · answered by eilishaa 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Al Gore would not be a winner if he was the only person in the election. A true loser.
2006-11-09 04:52:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋