Russian leader Vladimir Putin, speaking in his own country, recently criticized the U.S. electoral college. See this Washington Post story. The story quotes him as saying that twice, the person who got the most popular votes failed to take the office. Actually, that has happened four times, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.
What a hypocrite. He fails to acknowledge that his country was ruled by tyrants such as Stalin. I wonder how many people survived who actually attempted to remove Stalin from Office?
Khrushchev survived. The theory is Stalin was poisoned.
The USA Parliament gets hits from Moscow all the time. When the Environmentalist Party was founded in 1983 by Mike Bogatirev [Environmentalist], I think the Ruskies took note.
Dominik: I too agree with the theory Stalin was poisoned. What I was referring to by “how many people survived” was a play on words, meaning the Russian people never had free and open elections for the some 75 plus years of communist rule, and if an average citizen spoke out publicly against the government, off to Siberia they went.
Yes, Khrushchev “survived” but he was just as much a Communist as was Stalin. Maybe he wasn’t the tyrant Stalin was, but he helped keep over 200 million people in political bondage during his days as Premier.
The 12th Amdt is one of the 3 USA regime ANTI-Democracy minority rule systems.
Each Prez has de facto been elected by about 30 percent of the total votes in about 28 States and DC [Donkeys only].
—
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
And 1960.
HEAR YE!! HEar ye!
The International Parliament is Calling For NOMINATIONS!
http://www.international-parliament.org/
Calling all International Parliament (IP) participants who wish to be a Cabinet Minister on the IP Cabinet. We’re now accepting self-nominations as we start implementing the “parliamentary go-ahead” which will elect the first 60 full Cabinet Ministers.
When six of the ten executives give us the nod then the parliamentary go-ahead will elect all new full Cabinet Ministers.
The ten Executives
President Haji Ajmal Shamali [Independent] Afghanistan (9/18/2013)
Equality Chair Cathy Bilsky [Ubuntu] USA (10/2/2013)
Ombudsman Heli Tattari [Universal] Earth (7/1/2014)
Intelligence Director Ernest Wells [Communist] USA (5/2/2013)
Ombudsman Kristy Knight [Consciousness] USA (7/14/2014)
Vice President James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] USA (9/18/2013)
General Secretary Renil Chakma [Social Worker] Bangladesh (8/10/2014)
Ombudsman Ian Luckett [Respublica of Earth] UK (7/2/2014)
Nikhil Chakma [Jumma indigenous people, Chittagong Hill Tracts] Bangladesh (8/10/2014)
Dorothy Durio Collins [Democratic] USA (10/27/2014)
Jim Riley: By 1960, I assume you are referring to the razor thin majority of votes cast for John F. Kennedy. Some people believe Kennedy actually lost Illinois, but won with the help of Mayor Daley’s machine in Cook County. I understand Richard Nixon suspected such, but did not contest the election for fear of being called a “sore loser.”
In one of the recent movies about JFK, Kennedy is portrayed, as I recall, as being “put out” with his father, Joe Kennedy’s influence in the Illinois returns – especially Cook County.
So yes, if one could prove Nixon actually won Illinois, then 1960 would be another year where the candidate with the minority of national votes won the Presidency. But then again, if Illinois had gone to Nixon, so would have the state’s electoral votes.
If such had happened, would this then not make your reply of “And 1960” moot – unless you are referring to other incidents of voter fraud.
Please share with us if there were other incidents, as Illinois is the only state that I have ever heard about which might have affected the outcome.
No, 1960 should not be on the list. There are individuals who have asserted that Richard Nixon received more popular votes than John Kennedy. These individuals arbitrarily subtract 6/11ths of Kennedy’s popular votes in Alabama, because there were only 6 presidential elector candidates pledged to Kennedy in 1960 in Alabama. But these individuals were ignorant of the fact that there have been presidential candidates throughout U.S. history with slates of electors that weren’t complete, and no reference book or historian or reporter ever subtracted popular votes from such candidates, other than Kennedy in 1960. For example, Norman Thomas only had one presidential elector in Minnesota each time he ran, but no one ever therefore shrunk Norman’s popular vote down to a fraction of what it actually was. Harry Truman did not have a full slate of presidential elector candidates in Tennessee in 1948, but no one ever therefore subtracts some popular votes from Truman.
Richard: Yes, if one claims Kennedy could only receive 6/11th of the popular vote in Alabama, then the theory of 1960 being another election where the candidate receiving most of the popular vote did not win would hold true.
But it is hard to know who, in the minds of those Alabama voters in 1960 who voted individually for their Democratic electors at that time (as I understand) were voting for Kennedy. Obviously, most of the voters are dead, by now. So unless there was some kind of poll taken of prospective Democratic voters, one can only speculate as to how many of them wanted Kennedy, and how many wanted their electors to vote for some other candidate.
Also, one could argue that Democratic votes had to be counted “twice.” Those who voted for the pledged electors (for Kennedy) and those who voted of the unpledged electors. I think the top unpledged elector had more votes than the pledge elector. So while it does not change Kennedy’s popular vote enough to affect the outcome, would it not have to be said that Alabama voted for an Unpledged state (like Mississippi did) rather than for Kennedy?
How many popular votes did Stephen A Douglas, John Breckinridge, and John Bell receive in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania in 1860?
Jim: Howe many popular votes did Abraham Lincoln receive in any Southern state which eventually joined the Confederacy?
The Electoral College was intended to balance the voting power of less populated states with more populated states. A bigger concern today is how electronic voting machines are changing votes to the opponent.
Roderick: I may be wrong, but I thought the Electoral College system was chosen by the Founding Fathers because they did not trust the election of the National Executive by the swayed masses.
Still, the evolution of the Electoral College by state governments has over time has allowed the people of the states to have more say in selecting the Electors who chose the President and Vice-President. Many people actually think they are voting for President and Vice-President, when technically they are only voting for their electors.
Even though occasions such as the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 do happen, I think the Electoral College prevents candidates for President from concentrating on the most populous states. In a close election, small states such as Delaware can decide the winner.
I believe our republic is safer in keeping it this way.
The Electoral College was indeed designed to make sure large states did not have too much power. The irony is that now our Presidential elections are decided entirely by two states: Florida and Ohio. The EC is also one of the primary reasons we don’t have a viable third party in the U.S.: a three-candidate race would result in no majority winner, resulting in Congress selecting the winner.
I despise Vladimir Putin, but his criticism is correct: the United States has never had free and fair elections, because of (among other things) the Electoral College.
Actually, the electoral college was not designed to balance small population states and large population states. That balance was done by giving each state 2 US Senators but making the House proportional to population. The electoral college was designed as a compromise between slave states and free states. The serious history books describing the constitutional convention are in agreement on that.
The 1787 Constitution has a number of ANTI-Democracy EVIL and VICIOUS *compromises* — due to the EVIL conspiracy between the small and slave State regimes in the top secret 1787 Federal Convention.
Count the about 750,000 men KILLED in 1861-1865 due to such EVIL compromises.
Civil WAR II can happen any day now with the Devil City morons shooting off their EVIL mouths.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
I stand corrected. Even more reason to repeal the EC, it’s outdated.
Richard Winger claims:
“But these individuals were ignorant of the fact that there have been presidential candidates throughout U.S. history with slates of electors that weren’t complete, and no reference book or historian or reporter ever subtracted popular votes from such candidates,”
Your claim is not true with regard to 1860.
“The electoral college was designed as a compromise between slave states and free states.”
You might be right on this, Richard, but will have to research it. Seems as though I had read somewhere the founding fathers didn’t trust the masses in electing the president, but I could be wrong, and if I am wrong, I apologize to all.
How does the electoral college do that?