NYCPHP Meetup

[David Krings]

sbeam wrote:
  > So a lot of people don't understand it, and 3 times out of 54 a popular vote
> loser has become president - but elections are not supposed to just be a mere 
> popularity contest anyway.

But that is what an election in a democracy is supposed to be. The majority 
vote determines the winner, which means the popular vote and not the 
constellation of some electrocal college. Especially not since the rules for 
allocating the popular vote to the constellation of the members of the EC 
varies by state. Some have a winner takes it all approach while others follow 
more closely the will of the people.

I understand the benefits of it alright, but I am disturbed by calling this 
then a democratic process, because it is not. It skews the results and gives 
some rural vote more weight. That doesn't follow the one person one vote idea, 
which doesn't even apply with the EC in the middle. There is nothing that 
mandates that the EC members of one state have to follow the majority decision 
of the voters. So if 80% in state A vote for candidate 1 the EC members of 
that state can all vote for candidate 2. How is this a fair and democratic 
process? It is like me hiring you to do my work, but not givinh you any of my 
salary - or commonly known as scam.
I agree that the cases where the EC member(s) voted differently than expected 
are not that many, but just having this possibility designed into the system 
is a major flaw. And that is why many people who do well understand the 
process don't understand why a country like the USA still employ such a 
process that may have made sense 200 years ago. I guess it is kept in place as 
it is much easier to bribe only a bunch of people than the whole population.

David