[Magdalen] Stupid question

[Eleanor Braun]

Without the Electoral College, Gore would have won in 2000 -- he won the
national popular vote.

Eleanor

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016, Scott Knitter <scottknitter at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've often wondered the same things. My assumptions (which may be
> wrong, of course):
> 1. The primaries are a function of the parties, basically, and perhaps
> the state party organizations most of all. I assume that it would be
> possible for the parties to select their candidates solely through
> conventions restricted to card-carrying party members but that
> primaries and caucuses were adopted as the best poll of the party
> members and sympathizers in each state. So now we have that tradition,
> with its varying rules by state (and D.C. and Puerto Rico, Democrats
> Abroad, etc.).
> 2. The Electoral College comes up for discussion every four years,
> just like daylight saving time every six months, and then it all
> quiets down again. On the one hand it seems a quaint mechanism
> designed for a large country pre-Internet and pre-automobile (and
> pre-radio). One advantage I can think of is that the Electoral College
> system quickly pinpoints the location of a problem: the Bush-Gore
> problem was pinpointed to Florida. If the general election were
> nationwide majority, I wonder how that might have gone. Perhaps the
> hanging chads would not have surfaced as much of a problem at all. But
> I think Electoral College proponents have better arguments than this,
> and so do opponents.
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > I feel very ignorant in asking this, but I wonder if someone can explain
> to me--or point me to a source--why we don't elect by popular vote?  Why
> can't they just add up all the votes in the primaries and declare the
> winners in each party based on the totals?
> > Then do the same with the general election--the one with the most votes
> wins. Then you wouldn't have the ridiculous situation we had with
> Bush-Gore.  And wouldn't that be likely to bring out more voters, since
> they would feel their vote actually counted?
> >
> > I'm sure there is some historical reason, and it may even be a good one,
> but I don't know what it is...
>
>
>
> --
> Scott R. Knitter
> Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois USA
>