This has resulted in a system that is heavily biased in favor of electing a Republican Party candidate winner. Three times in American history, 1876. 1888 and in 2000, Republican candidates lost the popular vote but were elected president by the electoral college. No Democrat has ever lost the popular vote and has been elected president. All three electoral college-only winners have been Republicans.
Now a new scheme on the part of some Republicans is to put a constitutional amendment on California ballot that would divide the state's electoral votes by Congressional district to the winner of a presidential election while all other states would continue with the present "winner take all" system.
Such a new scheme would only further bias the electoral college system against any future Democratic Party presidential candidate and likely result in even more elections in which Republican candidates lose the popular vote, but are elected president by the electoral college system. Now some California state Democrats are offering a counter-proposal constitutional amendment that allows for the popular vote of a president or else awards the electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. But a majority of the U.S. states would have to eventually agree to such a proposal, which could take many years to ever take effect, if ever.
Any state proposals in California only complicate an already flawed system of electing a president that favors Small Republican leaning states such as Wyoming which receive a disproportionate strength in the current electoral college system which means that with just 3 electoral votes(based on 1 Representative in Congress and two U.S. Senators), 1 electoral vote in Wyoming represents just 186,000 persons. In larger states such as California with 36.4 million persons and 55 electoral votes, 1 electoral vote is represented by at least 660,000 persons. All of this violates any sort of "one man, one vote" standards. 1 vote in little states such as Wyoming are equal to the votes of 3 persons in California under the current electoral college system.
And things become even more complicated when regional factors are figured in. The strength of the Republican Party is in the South and parts of the West. In 2008 it is highly possible that a Democratic presidential candidate will fail to win even one state in the South, which may make a win in the electoral college very difficult despite a possible national popular vote plurality.
In the 2000 election, Al Gore failed to become president despite winning the popular vote because of a rare loss in his home state of Tennessee in the South. Further normally Democratic West Virginia became recently influenced by Christian Right politics and Florida was a narrow loss for Gore due to a list of felons that did not use Social Security numbers for validation, so disqualified a large pool of African American voters with only similar names, accounting for a slim loss by only hundreds of votes and the entire 2000 national election.
In any normal presidential election the actual winner is actually picked by one single state, Ohio, is yet another problem. No candidate, Republican or Democrat has been elected president in modern times without winning this critical swing state that seems to mirror the entire U.S. in social makeup.
The current electoral college system was not reformed after the 2000 election fiasco. In 2008, this flawed system could again yield some very unhappy results for Democrats if they should win the popular vote, but lose the election in the electoral college for the fourth time in American history.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!