Let's pretend for a moment that McCain got the majority of the popular vote, but Obama got the electoral vote?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ gives that scenario a 1.99% chance of happening.

I would continue to say the same thing about the electoral college that I have for years:

The electoral college successfully weighs the interests of the large states and the small states (adding the senators where each state gets two with the house reps where they are according to population). But the winner-takes-all system vastly and unfairly raises the importance of some constituents over others. If you live in a large swing state, your vote matters more than anyone elses. Why are Floridians more important than Texans? Why are Ohioans more important than New Yorkers? It doesn't make sense. If you give out electoral votes pro-rata according to the vote in each state, then candidates will try to win each state by the largest amount possible and will compete for small percentages in states that traditionally go to the other party in order to pick up an extra electoral vote or two. It would preserve the benefits of the electoral college while allowing it to better reflect the popular vote.

As is, the popular vote has only ever disagreed with the electoral college twice, and this year is not likely to be the third, but it would be far less likely to happen in this system and neither large nor small states would get ignored.

EDIT: Mike, you're partly right, but I'd like to point out that at the time the electoral college was created, the 13 states in the East was the entire nation.

EDIT: Lacy, fivethirtyeight disagrees with your assessment, giving an Obama popular vote/McCain electoral vote victory a 0.76% chance, far less than the already small chance of the scenario described above.

i'm attentive to the electoral college equipment and that i'm attentive to the historic certainty that some presidents are elected devoid of receiving the favored majority. The 2000 election lawsuits weren't frustrating the electoral college equipment. They have been attempting to ascertain the winner contained in the state of Florida, the place the vote casting actually got here right down to interior some ballots. and because the two applicants had sufficient electoral votes that winning Florida might win the election, the placement have been given particularly nasty particularly quickly. the communicate over ballots became no longer something new, its only that it became the 1st time it mattered. There are continually some ballots the place something is fishy, possibly somebody crammed in a circle, then erased it, so there is a few controversy approximately who that man or woman voted for. those issues ensue in each election, yet whilst its just some hundred ballots and the race is desperate by making use of one hundred,000 or extra, then it would not make national information. yet in Florida in 2000, that handful of questionable ballots became sufficient to make the version with who gained the state, and the states electoral votes have been sufficient to make the version in who gained the election. If Obama losses in electoral votes buts wins in known votes, then Obama will concede and genuinely everyone will agree that McCain is the rightful president. some people will question the reasoning for having the electoral college, and a few people will call for it to be abolished, yet that isn't impact the effect of the 2008 election.

No they would not. They would say Obama won and then point to 2000 election. I read an article yesterday that said this is a realistic possibility based on the battleground states. Many people also do not realize that this almost occurred in 2004. If Kerry had taken 100,000 more votes in Ohio that would have been the result. This has happened roughly 3 times in out history. For myself I advocate removing the Electoral College completely. I do not believe it is still necessary.

At one time, the polls were showing McCain with a 3% national lead, but Obama had a 273-265 lead in the electoral vote. It happened in 2000 and could happen again. It happened in 1876 and 1888 too. The popular vote does not mean much, only the electoral vote.

Let's see...Obama gets the electoral vote, so he wins. The Electoral College: Right for America! Honestly? I was irked when Bush beat Gore, but not so much that I advocated for the popular vote. Like you, I also support the system the way it was then (and is now).

I've been complaining the electoral college needs to be re-worked since 2000, even though I voted for Bush. Its not a real win if you only get it by a technicality

I've been saying the Electoral College should be abolished since I did a term paper about it in college - about 12 years ago. I said it after Bush won in 2000 and I'll continue to say it until it's changed.

I won't complain, since I had to endure Bush because of the electoral votes, I will be happy however Obama wins. I only hate that my state remains red.

The electoral college and vote was established to prevent the large population centers in the east from controlling the national elections. I believe it is the best and fairest way to conduct a national election. If your scenario should happen, it's just the way it is and Obama wins.

Since the change wouldn't be retroactive, I'd still support it, as it wouldn't affect the 2008 election.

ETA: I just think, in a democracy, it makes no sense for the majority of people to vote for one guy, but another guy to actually be named president because of the vagaries of the electoral college.