Here's an informative little chart, the most interesting and relevant entries of which are:
| 1876 | Rutherford B. Hayes, Rep | 185 | 4,035,924 |
| Samuel J. Tilden, Democrat | 184 | 4,287,670 | |
| 1888 | Benjamin Harrison, Republican | 233 | 5,445,269 |
| Grover Cleveland, Democrat | 168 | 5,540,365 | |
| 2000 | George W. Bush, Republican | 271 | 50,456,169 |
| Al Gore, Democrat | 266 | 50,996,116 |
These are, of course, Presidential election results. The third column is each candidate's number of electoral votes, the second the popular vote. I've mentioned and railed on this before, but I hate when people say things about "a political era during which Bush can get into the White House with fewer votes than his opponent," like it's something totally unheard of and logically unsound. As the chart cleary shows, it's happened two other times, the first time over 125 years ago. And 2000 wasn't even the first time that there was a post-election bruhaha about the legitimacy of who got what electoral votes. It happened in 1876. There's a reason that the electoral college exists. Otherwise, why would anyone give a damn about what's going on in South Dakota or Montana? You'd never see a candidate go there, or inact any sort of legislation for those people. Why would he (or she)? If not for the electoral college, the elections would only focus on New York and California and a few other highly populated areas. And why wouldn't they, if the popular vote is what it takes to get elected. (Also, as my brother Geoff pointed out, Clinton never won an outright majority of the vote either, so in reality, many more people didn't want him to be president than did.)
Anyway, few things make me angrier these days then turning on the TV or reading something where someone indignantly proclaims his or her disbelief that they could live in a country where "the President wasn't even elected" or some such shit. It just reflects poorly on the person making the comment, highlighting their utter ignorance of the democracy they live in (and yes, it's not a "true" democracy). As a public service, here's a good document listing the pros and cons of the electoral college. If you don't feel like sifting through it, here's the bit about why popular vote as rejected as a viable means of selecting the President:
"Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones (my italics)."Without the electoral college, Kerry and Dean probably wouldn't even campaign in the states, or even regions, that they're from. In fact, anyone with Presidential aspirations would find it awfully tempting to set up residence in NY or CA or Texas and run for office there, thereby establishing a solid base with a huge population. Anyway, not a huge supporter of Bush, but it really bugs me that people still get their panties in a bunch over this. Funny that the good people at MoveOn.org can't get over it.
Anyway, that's my political thought for the day. I'm finding myself a lot more interested in politics than I ever thought I would. I actually turned on CNN to catch the election coverage yesterday, even missing the first bit of one of my favorite tv shows. Um, heh...
Mail to G-Rock