how fair is the electoral college today, as evinced by the outcome of the 2000 election?
961975
the electoral college is very fair.   It gives each state equal voting representation.  If we didn't have the electoral college all elections would be decided by NY, TX, and CA.
894030
Actually, Bush called the second election a 'clear mandate'.  So, no, I don't see it changing with HIM.  Hoewever, the GOP will hopefully be smarter in 08 when they realize that we still live in a democracy, and you better give us someone we want, or face another humiliating loss.  Just think, the GOP could have nominated Elizabeth Dole in 2000 instead of Bush...imagine how different things would be...
1046108
It works well, particularly in making smaller states matter. The majority of the states would stand to lose a significant amount of voting power if we went to a straight popular majority system. The president needs to represent the largest possible crossection of the country, which can't happen if he just caters to the large population centers, which is exactly what would happen without the electoral college.
709192
Well, with our current system, your vote really doesn't count much. Especially in Presidential elections. The Electoral College is a huge disaster for MANY reasons, and has got to got. Evidence: George Bush is president.
332320
Supposedly the citizens of the USA, but we really only vote for the electoral college. The Electors are under no obligation to vote the way the people voted. That's democracy for you.
1178315
Gore had it won in 2000 ! Bush did not win He cheated His way in ! Millions of Peoples votes disappeared...The way things are going with Bush and after Bush Leaves I think Elmo would be best President for 2008 ! at least he is honest !
70512
In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote, i.e. the majority voted for gore. In other countries you win if the majority votes for you. The foreigners dont believe that story about how Bush won because he got more of something called an electoral vote, especially since it happened in a state run by his brother. The election in Florida was done by computer, and everyone knows that a really good hacker can get into a computer and make it malfunction, so you know when theres something fishy going on with a computer, a hacker has made it past the firewall. Streamcat did'nt say concentration camp, he said temporary concentration camp, its a metaphor. People who the authorities considered inferior were locked up in a place where living conditions were a nightmare so they might think that New Orleans was a place they would not want to come back to after they became refugees. I wish Clinton was still president, those were the good old days.
575409
Where they can win electoral votes
262273
I can't believe the winner got 95% of the vote.  That seems very unlikely. Its probbly fraudulent.
949854
Mark D has it right.\n\nThe only other point is that some states determine that the electoral college votes need to go to the person who gets the popular vote en total while others have it doled out in percentages.\nIn other words, assuming the candidates are running at 60% to 40% and there are 10 electoral votes available:\nin some states, the candidate with the 60% will get all 10 votes.\nin other states, the candidate with 60% of the vote will get 6 votes and the other will get 4 votes...\nstill in a few others, it is not based upon popular vote, and the electors get to give the votes where they would like to (with certain restrictions).\n\nSo, for most states, the popular vote DOES count, but mainly by state, not necessarily the complete number of all votes in the entire country.  That is what happened to Bush & Gore and also happened to Harry Truman (the early edition papers actually announced his opponent the winner...).\n\nThose people who say their votes don't count are using it as a scapegoat for their own laziness.  There are plenty of non presidential elections on the same ballot that do NOT have electoral colleges - Senators, representatives governors any state initiative all the way down to their city government.
147300
There was no presidential election in 2001. \n\nGore won the popular vote in the 2000 elections, Bush the electoral vote with some help from FLorida officials and Supreme Court justices. \n\nWhen will we have direct voting for presidents?
1039857
There is a reason for it to exist.  The Electoral College was designed to make sure that there is a clearcut winner in the Presidential election to avoid the problems that could arise if the transition between administrations was not peaceful, as has been observed in other countries.  It also doesn't cut the small states out of the equation for selecting a President, for, due to the fact that each state's electoral vote is equal to its number of Senators and Representatives in Congress, the smaller states have a larger percentage of the Electoral College total than they do of the overall population (e.g. Wyoming's population is roughly 1/100 that of California, but in the Electoral College Wyoming gets 3 votes to California's 56 or so).  It is also not a "secret society" as almost every state has a law that the electors to the College are bound to vote for the person getting the highest percentage of the popular vote in the state (as each party nominates its own electors for each election, it's usually the case that those people will vote for the candidate of that party).\n\nAnd, given that it is part of the Constitution, and that that can only be changed by an amendment that would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, the Electoral College will always be with us, because there are at least 13 states that are intelligent enough to see that they don't want to give any more power to California.
1080894
In 1876, the Republican candidate (Hayes) won the electoral college while narrowly losing the popular vote.\n\nIn 2000, the Republican candidate (Bush jr) won the electoral college while narrowly losing the popular vote.\n\nIn 1825, John Quincy Adams was elected by the House of Representatives, despite the fact that Andrew Jackson received the most popular and electoral votes in the 1824 election.  There was no majority at the Electoral College and the election was thrown to the House.  A deal between Adams and Henry Clay gave the election to Adams, and Clay was appointed Secretary of State.
514893
Not sure if that would help. But I would like to see the electoral colege go away so everybody's vote counts.\n\nIf there were no electoral college, bush would have lost his election and we wouldn't be in this mess.
32779
The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
827831
It's never been done.  \nUlysses S. Grant won the 1872 election against his main opponent Horace Greeley with 286 electoral college votes.  Greeley recieved 3, but they were never counted.  There were, however, four other candidates.  Thomas Hendricks recieved 42 votes, B. Gratz Brown took 18, Charles Jenkins won 2 and David Davis recieved 1 electoral vote.   \n\nit's almost happened a few times; \nIn 1820 Monroe beat John Adams 231-1 \nIn 1936 FDR beat Alfred Landon 523-8\nAnd Reagan beat Walter Mondale in 1984 525-13
162092
I certainly don't. It was a shameful exercise in partisan politics that led to the Bush regime and our current hapless state.\nWhether you believe the election was fair, of course, is almost entirely based on your bias for Bush or Gore. For example, the incorrect purging of voters, largerly democratic, from the rolls certainly favored Bush. It's also hard to argue that the confusing butterfly ballot did anything but cause many Gore supporters to inadvertenly vote for Buchanan or to have their ballots thrown out. This is pretty compelling, when you look at the ballot and know the political makeup of the county. And, to me at list, the discrepancy between a number of the exit polls and the final results simply reinforces the idea that many voters were disenfranchised for a variety of reasons--and in a Republican-controlled state, guess who is most likely to be disenfranchised?.\nStill, if a simple recount had been allowed, disregarding some of the other problems, the recount probably would have favored Bush. If so, the case might have been closed.\nBut the way it was handled, concluding with the Supreme Court's unusual intervention, creates a controversy that will never end.\nAnd, as far as the popular cry, "get over it," discussing history is actually a useful concept. Maybe we can learn from what happend in Florida and Ohio, for example, we can actually strengthen our own  democracy. Similarly, maybe by revisiting 9-11 we can help strengthen our defense; by revisiting the decision to invade Iraq we can avoid such faulty decision-making in the future; by revisiting Katrina we can help Homeland Security do a better job.... \nSo, no I won't "get over it." Neither will I dwell on it except when asked about it.