[Magdalen] Stupid question

[Kate Conant]

1948 Harry S. Truman (D) 57.1% 49.5%
1960 John F. Kennedy (D) 56.4% 49.7%
1968 Richard M. Nixon (R) 56.1% 43.4%
1992 William J. Clinton (D) 68.8% 43.0%
1996 William J. Clinton (D) 70.4% 49.0%
2000 George W. Bush (R) 50.3% 47.8%

These are the presidents (during my lifetime)  that took office with a
minority of the popular vote  (first % = electoral vote second % = popular
vote)

"What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, love mercy, and walk
humbly with your God?"
Micah 6:8

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM, James Oppenheimer-Crawford <
oppenheimerjw at gmail.com> wrote:

> The original concept was to have a trusted group of people elect the
> president. It was too important to leave to the electorate only (by which
> is meant male property-owners over the age of twenty-one years).They named
> this trusted group the electoral college.
>
> The electoral college was and is formed by people chosen by each of the
> states.  They were the ones who cast the vote. The number of
> representatives from each state is determined by statute, based on size and
> other factors.
>
> Since each state has a certain number of voters and its own method of
> selecting delegates for the electoral college, it is quite possible that
> you can have one candidate win the popular vote and lose the election, as
> was the case recently when Al Gore won the popular vote by a couple hundred
> thousand votes, yet lost in the electoral college.  But, hold on, before
> you say that's not fair.  The central or federal government is built from
> top to bottom with a bunch of assumptions designed to level the playing
> field between large states and small states.  In some instances, there is a
> disproportionate power given to the smaller states in view of the obvious
> fact that if there were not such checks and balances, the larger states
> would always have their way, and the smaller states would be reduced to
> utter impotence. The most obvious example of this is the Senate, where all
> states have an equal voice.   Choosing the president is not merely a matter
> of popular vote; it has to do with that, but also with the will of the
> individual states as well.
>
> People sometimes say that times have changed, and it's time to sweep aside
> all that antiquated stuff and bring the nation to a pure popular vote
> governance system.  However, that's not really true. Look at the States and
> you see some profoundly different ways of running things.  I am not often
> very happy with the way this plays out, but it still is a matter of
> respecting the will of the people, as represented by popular vote, but as
> expressed by the will of each state as well.
>
> The attached URL discusses one aspect of how this is playing out in our
> land which causes me to think we may be closer to a fracture than we know.
>
> http://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
>
> James W. Oppenheimer-Crawford
> *“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved,
> except in memory. LLAP**”  -- *Leonard Nimoy
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Grace Cangialosi <gracecan at gmail.com>
> 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...
> >
>