[Magdalen] Stupid question

[Grace Cangialosi]

On May 4, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Eleanor Braun <eleanor.braun at gmail.com> wrote:

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

Exactly my point!  Why do we need to interpose the Electoral College at all?

Grace










>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
>>