rw wrote in
m:

Tom Littleton wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
m...
..

The only real effect is to magnify the voting power of residents of
small states at the expense of residents of large states,


which was precisely the compromise that enabled the creation of a
Republic of large and small population states. Otherwise, an
agreement would have never been reached, and the USA, as we know it,
never would have existed. Does the system work perfectly? No. Would
any system? Just because a system of simple majority seems simple,
doesn't mean that it doesn't present very real
electoral/representational pitfalls. And, yes, you are correct in
citing how the system at the outset was able to work(before any real
two party setup in the current sense). Still, cite an example where
the system failed, beyond the fact that the person YOU supported
didn't win.

I'll cite two.

In the Presidential Election of 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular
vote but was defeated by Rutherford Hayes in electoral votes, 184 to
165 (later by 204 to 165 counting disputed votes, after an extremely
bitter and divisive electoral fight).

In the Presidential Election of 1888 incumbent Grover Cleveland won
the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to Benjamin Harrison,
233 to 168.

I didn't support any of these candidates. :-)


A minority-vote victory is not a failure of the Electoral College.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply