Different political systems

[EverCurious]

I'd say we have folks that vote no; they stay home, and it was like damn near half the population of the country in 2016...

 

[Cellblock2429]

in the Soviet Union, even though there was only one candidate, they did have the option to vote "No".

I wish we had that option. The way American elections work, if only 3 people vote in an electoral district, an one candidate gets 2 votes, they declare a 67% margin of victory.

We not only should have a "No" vote, but it should be required that the winner has to have more votes than there are "No" votes.

But then again - no one would ever get elected!

/----/ Gee that "NO" vote was real effective in keeping the Soviet Politburo from hand picking the next Premiere. And since there was no secret ballot in the USSR, how many NO voters survived 24 hours after the election? Why in God's green Earth would you want a system like that?

 

[Pogo]

I'd say we have folks that vote no; they stay home, and it was like damn near half the population of the country in 2016...

Yabbut they didn't count as a vote. Unfortunately "no vote" does not equal "vote no". Maybe it should.

 

[EverCurious]

^ Whats the point though? Just so we can have it on record? So we can create a de-facto third party to make elections a mess? (Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see third parties have more weight/consideration.)

What purpose could be proposed for having even 100M "No" votes in 2016 and what effect could that have had on whom was elected President? (Aside from political talking points by partisans anyway)

 

[Pogo]

^ Whats the point though? Just so we can have it on record? So we can create a de-facto third party to make elections a mess? (Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see third parties have more weight/consideration.)

What purpose could be proposed for having even 100M "No" votes in 2016 and what effect could that have had on whom was elected President? (Aside from political talking points by partisans anyway)

The way (I understand) it's supposed to work is, if you have an election and NOTA wins, then you have another one with different candidates.

 

[EverCurious]

^ Whats the point though? Just so we can have it on record? So we can create a de-facto third party to make elections a mess? (Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see third parties have more weight/consideration.)

What purpose could be proposed for having even 100M "No" votes in 2016 and what effect could that have had on whom was elected President? (Aside from political talking points by partisans anyway)

The way (I understand) it's supposed to work is, if you have an election and NOTA wins, then you have another one with different candidates.

I'm not keen on the mess that would make, but I suppose its effectively little different from this bullshit obstruction for months we've got going on right now. Thing is presidential campaigns take over a year to organize, I'm not sure how many candidates have the funding nor inclination to continue their campaigns as a "second choice" vote...

 

[Richard-H]

in the Soviet Union, even though there was only one candidate, they did have the option to vote "No".

I wish we had that option. The way American elections work, if only 3 people vote in an electoral district, an one candidate gets 2 votes, they declare a 67% margin of victory.

We not only should have a "No" vote, but it should be required that the winner has to have more votes than there are "No" votes.

But then again - no one would ever get elected!

/----/ Gee that "NO" vote was real effective in keeping the Soviet Politburo from hand picking the next Premiere. And since there was no secret ballot in the USSR, how many NO voters survived 24 hours after the election? Why in God's green Earth would you want a system like that?

You should talk to people that actually lived in the Soviet Union. You have some very childish ideas about it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.”

Disagree.

And it’s not really a ‘system,’ it’s merely the state representatives convening to cast votes reflecting the will of the people of the states as to whom will become president.

The states elect the president, not the people – and appropriately so, consistent with our republican form of government.

Indeed, the states are responsible for enacting elections laws, administering those laws, and determining voter eligibility – electing a president is a state process, not a Federal or National process, and is subject to the elections laws of the many states.

That the states elect our president is a fundamental component of our Federal system of government.

It’s at this point of the discussion that some might opine that the General Elections of 2001 and 2016 were ‘mistakes,’ that Bush and Trump became president in opposition to the will of a majority of the American people.

But the problem isn’t the Electoral College, or its being ‘outdated,’ the problem is the House of Representatives failing to execute its responsibilities pursuant to Article II, Section 4.

The Framers were aware of the possibility that a president might be elected not reflecting the will of a majority of the people, that such a president might be incompetent, unfit, or otherwise incapable of performing the duties of president.

And the Framers afforded Congress the means by which to remove an unfit president from office: the impeachment process.

Unfortunately, the Framers did not foresee a Congress so blind and hyper-partisan that it would refuse to begin the impeachment process to remove from office someone truly unfit to be president, such as Trump.

 

[Lastamender]

“I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.”

Disagree.

And it’s not really a ‘system,’ it’s merely the state representatives convening to cast votes reflecting the will of the people of the states as to whom will become president.

The states elect the president, not the people – and appropriately so, consistent with our republican form of government.

Indeed, the states are responsible for enacting elections laws, administering those laws, and determining voter eligibility – electing a president is a state process, not a Federal or National process, and is subject to the elections laws of the many states.

That the states elect our president is a fundamental component of our Federal system of government.

It’s at this point of the discussion that some might opine that the General Elections of 2001 and 2016 were ‘mistakes,’ that Bush and Trump became president in opposition to the will of a majority of the American people.

But the problem isn’t the Electoral College, or its being ‘outdated,’ the problem is the House of Representatives failing to execute its responsibilities pursuant to Article II, Section 4.

The Framers were aware of the possibility that a president might be elected not reflecting the will of a majority of the people, that such a president might be incompetent, unfit, or otherwise incapable of performing the duties of president.

And the Framers afforded Congress the means by which to remove an unfit president from office: the impeachment process.

Unfortunately, the Framers did not foresee a Congress so blind and hyper-partisan that it would refuse to begin the impeachment process to remove from office someone truly unfit to be president, such as Trump.

Considering that those members of congress are someone to write home about, right?

 

[CowboyTed]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

I agree that the electoral college is no longer needed, but I don't agree that the French or German system of selecting a national executive are better. I do agree that they are different from the U.S.' system.

• The Electoral College

The short of things today is that an electoral college win basically requires a candidate/party do one thing better than its opponent(s): get people into the voting booth. The way to do that is to have a charismatic nominee. That end, entertainers have a huge "leg up" in comparison to the "typical" geek who may indeed have better quality ideas about governance and public policy.

Putting that in card players' parlance, "It's better to be very lucky than to be very good."

Well I have thought about other ways of doing things. For example instead of voting for a leader, why not vote for leaders? Switzerland has a 7 person executive. The US executive is so full of people who do these jobs, why shouldn't they be directly elected.

Imagine minister for education. They run on a platform of how much money they want, and they are given this money. This money is taken directly from taxes, so that people know that they're going to have to pay for this, and the minister cannot get more money from Congress unless Congress wishes to give it to them.

But it would require a Congress that actually has proper oversight, which requires more than two parties.

I will just qualify this a little...

After the vote and you usually have a coalition of a few like minded parties... Deals are stuck to form a government with various parties getting something they want, compromise is key...

The big two jobs are Prime Minister and Minister of Finance... Think CEO and CFO in an organisation...

A program of government is laid down... This is the plan and the Government tries to deliver to that plan. This plan would contain:

• Financial planning for various departments and how that money will be spent
• Referendums which will be placed in front of the people (so Abortion, Death Penalty, Membership of economic unions....)
• Targets set to achieve

The government (which consists of 1 or more parties) sign up to this... Program is maximum of 5 years...

If the main party decides to go rouge, appoint a judge who is too extreme or trust is broken in other ways the government is pulled down and we vote again (confidence vote for the Prime Minister), if no alternative government can be formed. Keep pulling down governments and the public are swift in changing their vote.

The big angle about PR STV voting is that you get a choice not only of what party you are voting for but who in the party you want... So in a 5 seater in Texas the Republicans could run 6 candidates and a die in the wool GOP guy can vote in preference for which ones he likes.. This makes candidates really work as a safe GOP seat is not safe and pissing off people is not very smart as there lower preferences might be needed in a race.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Only, they wouldn't.

Just as in Germany where Berlin and Munich don't control the government.

I'm sorry you have been misinformed. You can read some of my other posts to see why you are misinformed.

Those two states tip the scales on population dingleberry.

By how much?

The reality is 20% of the population live in these two states, but only 10% of voters are from these two states.

So, how much impact do 10% of voters have in PR? Well, about 10% of the vote.

Surely they should have a say in a democracy.

Hillary won by the majority of voters BECAUSE of New York and California.

That is the way pretty much all elections would pan out from here on out.

Wrong. And here's why.

You're ASSUMING that under a legitimately representative system -- as every country with democratic elections practices except us and Pakistan --- that popular vote would be the same as it is now and all you do is subtract the Electoral College from the process.

That ignores the entire context behind the whole exercise.

We currently "boast" an abysmal participation rate in our own elections. 2016's 55% was typical, and most countries would be and should be grossly embarrassed at that level. Why is that? Because millions of voters know before election day that their vote WILL NOT COUNT. Anyone who lives in a locked-red or locked-blue state has no purpose in going to vote for a President. They can vote with their state, they can vote against their state, they can vote some alternate candidate, or they can stay home and not participate at all, and all four actions have the same result ---- so what's the point? Stay home, get something productive done, and your red state votes Republican or your blue state votes Democrat, and nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and the Duopoly system perpetuates itself in perpetuity.

And if you happen to be in a so-called "batleground" state -- a bullshit concept that could not, and should not, exist but for the equally bullshitious "winner take all" electoral college system --- then you have a brief period of relevance influencing that, after which your vote just might be tossed in the dump anyway and thanks for playin'.

Now take that system of institutional irrelevance foisted upon that 45% of the electorate that doesn't bother to show up because what's the point, GIVE them a point, MAKE them actually relevant, and you see a whole different ball game.

In other words you, and I, and we, have no idea how many voters in New York and California and Massachusets would have voted Red if they thought their vote would count, nor do we have any idea how many in Alabama and Utah and Nebraska would vote blue for the same reason. We have no basis to predict anything, because we have no history of counting votes in a system where everybody's vote counts. In a way we have never had a real Presidential election.

So this is uncharted territory and predicting how a representative system would pan out based only on the history of an unrepresentative system ------- tells us nothing.

Wut?

California and New York vote straight Dim.

But they wouldn't if it were PR. Why? Because 31% of California voted Republican, and New York 36%.

Now, with the EC, for the most part, allows states to choose how to split the seats, and these states give all their votes to one candidate.

The mistake you're making is that you're assuming another system would be similar to the EC. It wouldn't.

With PR the top two parties would probably lose about 1/3 of their vote.

You'd be looking at Democrats getting possibly 40% of the vote, Republicans 20% of the vote, then a center right party getting 10% and another left wing party getting about 15% of the vote in California. With other parties taking up the rest, depending on how many parties there are.

Most of those votes would actually count, whereas right now those 30% of votes simply get lost in the system and the people feel they have wasted their vote.

In Germany if a party gets 5% they get into parliament. In the US you can get 48% of the vote in a state and it's meaningless.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Feel free to move to either of those countries.

Oh, wow, this argument again.

Here's the analogy.

A man works for a company. He says to his boss "hey boss, if we do this, we can make more money" the boss says "well you're free to go to those companies".....

Heh. Well, it's not an argument. Just a weak attempt to dismiss criticism.

The worst impediment to improving our elections is the short sighted views of most voters. They are so steeped in the two-party system that they will always look at any changes from the perspective of how it impacts their "team", without really considering the broader improvements.

Okay, let's try this. Your "criticism" was bullshit. It's not an argument at all, it's a way of dismissing what I said. So, I'm being criticized for doing what the person I replied to did. Oh, wow.

 

[Blackrook]

I think it's hilarious that the OP uses Germany as an example of an electoral system we should follow.

Germany is the country that elected Adolph Hitler.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

The German system doesn't have a President, the Chancellor is the leader of the largest party in the Bundestag. They have a system whereby people vote Proportional Representation AND First Past The Post for constituencies on the same day.

Every voter gets to vote for the party that they want to rule. Every voter's vote counts towards the make up of parliament if their party makes it past the 5% threshold OR they win a constituency seat.

In 2013 two parties almost made it to the 5% threshold but failed. There are 5 parties in parliament, the chances are there will be 6 or 7 in the Bundestag in 12 days time.

10% of people changed their vote from larger parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR.

This system is better because 95% of the voters's votes ended up deciding the make up of government. In the US House election, many people vote but their vote doesn't have an impact.

For example, Alabama's First Congressional District only one candidate stood. Meaning if you wanted to vote Democrat, you couldn't, if you wanted to vote anyone else, you couldn't. 7,000 people voted "other" because it was their only choice and they were essentially disenfranchised.

In the 2nd district 40% voted Democrat and 48% voted Republican, meaning those who voted Democrat had no say in the make up of their government.

In the Presidential election only 12 states, making up 20% of the people, have a say in who the President will be.

The French system has a president. The Presidential election has a run off, which means in the first round people can vote for whoever they like without having to worry about who they don't want to get in. This allows positive voting.

The National Assembly has FPTP like the USA does, but has a two round system which means if someone doesn't get the required number of votes, then they vote again. For example (alphabetically again) Ain's 1st constituency one candidate got 37% of the vote, one got 38% of the vote. In the US Debat would have won. In France he went into a second round and LOST with 48% of the vote.

This means in the first round people could feel free to choose who they wanted to vote for.

This also means that more parties are viable as people vote POSITIVELY which means in the presidential election they'll also vote positively and more candidates will stand, meaning more choice.

Both of these systems allow for people to have more choice, allow for more parties than the US system, which would make far more democracy in the USA.

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated.

Here are some systems which are better.

I agree that the electoral college is no longer needed, but I don't agree that the French or German system of selecting a national executive are better. I do agree that they are different from the U.S.' system.

• The Electoral College

The short of things today is that an electoral college win basically requires a candidate/party do one thing better than its opponent(s): get people into the voting booth. The way to do that is to have a charismatic nominee. That end, entertainers have a huge "leg up" in comparison to the "typical" geek who may indeed have better quality ideas about governance and public policy.

Putting that in card players' parlance, "It's better to be very lucky than to be very good."

Well I have thought about other ways of doing things. For example instead of voting for a leader, why not vote for leaders? Switzerland has a 7 person executive. The US executive is so full of people who do these jobs, why shouldn't they be directly elected.

Imagine minister for education. They run on a platform of how much money they want, and they are given this money. This money is taken directly from taxes, so that people know that they're going to have to pay for this, and the minister cannot get more money from Congress unless Congress wishes to give it to them.

But it would require a Congress that actually has proper oversight, which requires more than two parties.

I will just qualify this a little...

After the vote and you usually have a coalition of a few like minded parties... Deals are stuck to form a government with various parties getting something they want, compromise is key...

The big two jobs are Prime Minister and Minister of Finance... Think CEO and CFO in an organisation...

A program of government is laid down... This is the plan and the Government tries to deliver to that plan. This plan would contain:

• Financial planning for various departments and how that money will be spent
• Referendums which will be placed in front of the people (so Abortion, Death Penalty, Membership of economic unions....)
• Targets set to achieve

The government (which consists of 1 or more parties) sign up to this... Program is maximum of 5 years...

If the main party decides to go rouge, appoint a judge who is too extreme or trust is broken in other ways the government is pulled down and we vote again (confidence vote for the Prime Minister), if no alternative government can be formed. Keep pulling down governments and the public are swift in changing their vote.

The big angle about PR STV voting is that you get a choice not only of what party you are voting for but who in the party you want... So in a 5 seater in Texas the Republicans could run 6 candidates and a die in the wool GOP guy can vote in preference for which ones he likes.. This makes candidates really work as a safe GOP seat is not safe and pissing off people is not very smart as there lower preferences might be needed in a race.

Well, the first thing is you have a coalition, it can be like minded parties, but actually in Germany in recent times it's been a coalition of the main two parties.

Yes, compromise is essential. In Germany compromise is taken for granted and no party assumes it can do whatever it likes.

In full PR you don't have constituencies, so all votes count. So in diehard Texas, a person who votes Democrat will have his vote counted, regardless of whether everyone else votes Republican or not.

In Germany they have a duel system which I like. First you have constituency seats, so people can fight for their people, and then you have lists made up of all the muppet politicians who maybe find it harder to get elected. In this there are issues, but more often than not these people get elected in safe seats anyway, so it doesn't change much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think it's hilarious that the OP uses Germany as an example of an electoral system we should follow.

Germany is the country that elected Adolph Hitler.

I think it's hilarious that the person I am replying to doesn't understand the German political system and yet feels the need to criticize the OP for something which, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd realize just how ridiculous what you've said is.

The German system comes from 1949. The Nazis had been defeated 4 years before. The Weimar system was flawed, and this was exacerbated by the US withdrawing loans from Germany just as it was getting back on its feet from WW1.

 

[eagle7_31]

I think it's hilarious that the OP uses Germany as an example of an electoral system we should follow.

Germany is the country that elected Adolph Hitler.

I think it's hilarious that the person I am replying to doesn't understand the German political system and yet feels the need to criticize the OP for something which, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd realize just how ridiculous what you've said is.

The German system comes from 1949. The Nazis had been defeated 4 years before. The Weimar system was flawed, and this was exacerbated by the US withdrawing loans from Germany just as it was getting back on its feet from WW1.

The only reason the EC is an issue is because the Dems got the popular voter. Had the results been reversed, Hillary winning the EC and Trump the popular vote you not be hearing one peep from the Dems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think it's hilarious that the OP uses Germany as an example of an electoral system we should follow.

Germany is the country that elected Adolph Hitler.

I think it's hilarious that the person I am replying to doesn't understand the German political system and yet feels the need to criticize the OP for something which, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd realize just how ridiculous what you've said is.

The German system comes from 1949. The Nazis had been defeated 4 years before. The Weimar system was flawed, and this was exacerbated by the US withdrawing loans from Germany just as it was getting back on its feet from WW1.

The only reason the EC is an issue is because the Dems got the popular voter. Had the results been reversed, Hillary winning the EC and Trump the popular vote you not be hearing one peep from the Dems.

Well, actually this is me. You can see that I've been talking about this for years.

Proportional Representation in US elections?

From March 31st 2014

"Proportional Representation in US elections?

So, the Republican Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money.
The Democratic Party is corrupt, not interested in the voters but the money."

Imagine the US had Proportional Representation.....

From May 5th 2014

Imagine the US had Proportional Representation.....

 

[Blackrook]

I think it's hilarious that the OP uses Germany as an example of an electoral system we should follow.

Germany is the country that elected Adolph Hitler.

I think it's hilarious that the person I am replying to doesn't understand the German political system and yet feels the need to criticize the OP for something which, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd realize just how ridiculous what you've said is.

The German system comes from 1949. The Nazis had been defeated 4 years before. The Weimar system was flawed, and this was exacerbated by the US withdrawing loans from Germany just as it was getting back on its feet from WW1.

The Weimar system wasn't flawed, it was just as good as any other system for choosing its leaders.

Your desire to overthrow the United States Constitution because you lost one election is duly noted, and I will tell you, quite treasonous in nature.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think it's hilarious that the OP uses Germany as an example of an electoral system we should follow.

Germany is the country that elected Adolph Hitler.

I think it's hilarious that the person I am replying to doesn't understand the German political system and yet feels the need to criticize the OP for something which, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd realize just how ridiculous what you've said is.

The German system comes from 1949. The Nazis had been defeated 4 years before. The Weimar system was flawed, and this was exacerbated by the US withdrawing loans from Germany just as it was getting back on its feet from WW1.

The Weimar system wasn't flawed, it was just as good as any other system for choosing its leaders.

Your desire to overthrow the United States Constitution because you lost one election is duly noted, and I will tell you, quite treasonous in nature.

Yeah, wasn't flawed, just led to Hitler and the total destruction of the Weimar system. How can a system no be flawed that leads to its own destruction?

It's major flaw was that it allowed as many parties as possible into parliament.

In 1930 only 5 parties gained over 5%, the current threshold. 10 parties gained over 3%, the threshold in other countries. There were 15 parties in parliament. To form a coalition was almost impossible. The largest party was the SPD with less than 25% of the votes. Two parties together couldn't form a coalition. Three would have required the Nazis and Communists to work together.

But that's neither here nor there, the Weimar system isn't the current system in Germany. And you're trying to say the current system is poor because the previous system got Hitler elected.

I mean, this is your argument? Aren't you ashamed?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I think the Electoral college system for voting for president is outdated. [Other election systems/formulas, particularly the French and German approaches, for choosing the chief executive of the government] are better.

I do not think the French or German system is better than the U.S. system for choosing the head of government (head of state). Electoral systems translate the votes cast in a general election into seats won by parties and candidates, in this case, the seat of the head of state, thereby facilitating the smooth transition of formal power. The systems for doing so in the U.S., France and Germany achieve that objective. Accordingly, in terms of achieving what an electoral system is supposed to achieve, the three are equal.

What then might motivate one to construe one electoral model is better than another?

• Either political actors lack basic knowledge and information so that the choices and consequences of different electoral systems are not fully recognized; or
• Conversely, political actors use their knowledge of electoral systems to promote designs which they think will work to their own partisan advantage.

In the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, it seems such rumblings derive from hindsight observations that if "something" were different about way the seats were chosen, a given party may have fared better or worse re: the election's outcome. One observes, for example, that were the election decided by simple majority votes, a different candidate (thus party) would have won the presidential election. Why? Because the U.S. has an electoral college model whereby individuals indirectly and states directly choose the president. Be that as it may, one might also observe that had more individuals who favored the losing candidate to have, in their states, voted for that candidate, the election outcome would also have been different.

Is the problem the alleged electoral system's inadequacy, by you declared to be the electoral college, or is it the candidate's? I think more the latter than the former. But then I'm an "own your sh*t" guy who ascribes principally to the notion that overwhelming the source of most dissatisfaction can be found by looking in the mirror, so to speak. I think that of U.S. election outcomes.

The fact of the matter is that both candidates and their parties knew damn well they had to win the election by winning the majority of votes in some assortment of states. Plain and simple, the way to the White House is by state not national majority, and both campaigns knew so. When the "rules of the game" are known and fixed at the start of a contest, short of it being shown the rules foster cheating, the game and its rules aren't the problem.

Did the Hillary team do what was necessary to catalyze voters, voters who should/would have voted for her, to show up and vote for her? Did Mitt Romney do what was necessary to catalyze voters, voters who should/would have voted for her, to show up and vote for him? Regardless of what constitutes "what be necessary" to have garnered the needed quantities of votes, the answer resoundingly is "no." That is not the fault of the electoral college model.