 |
 |
| ARTICLES |
| . | Dangers of a Direct Election - 1 by JAMES R WHITSON < james@presidentelect.org > posted November 11, 2000 |
|
| ... | . In my recent article An Open Letter To All Americans Concerned About The Electora College  I warned not to be alarmed by those who don't consider the dangers of direct election. In an email I received about that article, someone stated that the fact that I thought there were dangers to a direct election was "frankly beyond contempt". Since this person emailed me and did exactly what I warned about, apparently I didn't make my point well enough. So I'm going to write a few brief hypotheticals that I hope will illustrate these dangers better than I could state them. This is not a proof that the Electoral College is best, but only an example to show that a direct election is not without faults.
Right now, the popular vote difference between Gore and Bush is about 200,000. In 1960 , the difference between Kennedy and Nixon was about 120,000. So, obviously close races are possible. Let's imagine a hypothetical race between Canadidate A and Candidate B. Mr. A wins every state and DC, except Massachusetts. He wins these states by fairly small margins. In fact his total lead in his 49 states and DC in only 500,000 votes. In Massachusetts, Mr. B wins by 1,000,000 votes. Here is what the electoral map would look like:
Who is the President Elect? In a direct election, Candidate B wins. His popular vote would be 500,000 votes more than Candidate A. In the Electoral College, Candidate A wins 526-12.
The major argument direct election proponants use is that the Electoral College isn't fair. Is it fair for a candidate to only get a majority of the votes in one state, and still become President of all fifty?
|
|
feel free to send them to email@presidentelect.org.
original content and graphics unless otherwise noted
© 1999-2002 James R Whitson