Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mrsmith
‘does democracy really need to be more complicated than “most votes wins”? ‘

The founders wanted the winner to have wide support across the country, rather than deep support in just a few states, as a way of avoiding civil war.

In the election of 1860, the anti-Lincoln vote was split among three candidates, resulting in Lincoln winning with just 39.8% of the popular vote, and all his support in the North. The Civil War followed immediately.

43 posted on 08/26/2016 3:58:48 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Big government is attractive to those who think that THEY will be in control of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: PapaBear3625
The founders wanted the winner to have wide support across the country, rather than deep support in just a few states, as a way of avoiding civil war.

Maybe so, but then maybe not. The Constitution seems to have been written with the expectation that the Electoral College would not be sufficient to elect the president on a regular basis. In early decades of the U.S. it was not uncommon for three or more major party candidates to compete in a presidential election, so the potential for plurality results was much higher back then.

57 posted on 08/26/2016 4:56:27 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Sometimes I feel like I've been tied to the whipping post.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson