http://www.upworthy.com/...of-the-popular-vote?c=o98

although this problem isn't unique to the US. First past the post is generally fail, especially when the divisions have unequal numbers of voters.

having said that, you can be prime minister of Canada with 35% of the vote...

Simple, don't vote

makes no difference anyway

here to be prez needs to have over 50% of votes (due in here prez election lasts 2 rounds unless some1 gets over 50% of votes on 1st round (fat chance)), to be prime minister his/her party needs 20-25% of votes (most of time being biggest party is enuf but not always).

you don't have to have 50% of the vote to win the US presidency, far from it.

And the actual likelihood of that happening is...

Yeah I mean it matters to the point that if your state wins who you want or not.

I'd like it to be a straight popular vote nation wide. CA and NY have some huge pull!

It is much better to have the electoral college. The basis behind that is a mixture of state representation and populace representation. One of the reasons we are having so many problems at state levels is the lack of state representation at the federal level. The senate used to be appointed by states rather than elected by popular vote, now without representation, feds do stuff like withholding funding from states who don't comply with mandates. It's a shame really.

Without the Electoral College, the top 10 states by population would form a majority of voters and thus dictate policy to the other 40 states.

Similarly, it is possible to get more than 50% of the vote and not win. Ask Gore, Tilden, Jackson and Cleveland.

Also, what did Bill Clinton get in '92? 45% or so?

Maybe, but don't you think that with the electoral college "swing states" like Ohio, Iowa, Florida, etc. have an advantage in policy favoritism?

Gore got 48.4%. Clinton got 43%.

Clinton in 1992 illustrates a problem... he was elected president with just 17% of the US population voting for him.

And it is going to be that way again next election I bet :/


Mr Flibble, People like you are the reason the West sucks. I hope you never once complain about anything the government does because if you don't vote you have no right to fluff.

i'm not yankee or canuck.

In Canada, it's hard to figure out exactly what the theoretical minimum is because it's hard to decide what are reasonable assumptions regarding the lowest possible number of seats needed to become PM, or the most candidates that could run in each riding. But the number is was under 35%... it's easy to come up with a scenario which undercuts that number by a huge margin.

For example, Harper became Prime Minister in 2006 with 124 of 308 seats or 40% of the seats... demonstrating that 40% of the seats in parliament is a viable level at which one can become PM.

Between the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green Party it is reasonable to conceive of there being at least 4 candidates in every riding in Canada. If each of those which goes to the winning party is close, they could win each one with only 26% of the popular vote.

40% * 26% = 10.4%

Therefore in an extreme scenario, which is based upon reasonable assumptions about the number of parties and the number of seats needed, one could become PM with just over 10% of the popular vote.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

i should notify Pinky and the Brain about this development.

In Australia, you can be PM with 20,000 votes and the majority of the sitting members of your party.

They're swing states precisely because it is hard to win them over with a particular policy. Go too far to the left and those states swing to the right. Go too far to the right and those states swing to the left. You have to do this while governing in such a way as to not alienate your base and put states that your party traditionally holds into play because your supporters stay home on election day. You would think that swing states have an advantage in policies, but it's more that they never really have a disadvantage in policies as opposed to being a state like Texas that under the current president has been disadvantaged because they're traditionally more aligned with the Republican Party.

At any rate, I still support the Electoral System, but not so much the college. I think we can dispense with electing people to vote for president and automate the process. If Tennessee wants to be a "Winner takes all" state, then whoever wins TN should automatically get those electoral votes...no need to send people to washington to vote for President again. If this process fails to produce a winner with 50%+1 of the votes in the electoral college, then it goes to the congress as it does not.

Seriously. If you can win EXACTLY those voters that you need, then you deserve to win it.