In our democratically held elections a person wins by getting more votes than anybody else - even if he does not get a majority of the votes.
In reality do you consider a person "winning the vote" if he he only wins by a plurality?
Suppose there were 10 candidates for office - and the "winner" of the election only received 25% of the vote. Would you consider him "winning the popular vote"?
Can he honestly claim he has the "will of the people"?
In an election where the popular vote determines the winner and one candidate does not receive a majority there is usually a run-off. For president the popular vote does not count so the candidate who has the most votes wins the popular vote majority or not.
I have never heard of that happening in a US electing
True, but by "winning" the vote he wins the electoral votes - supposedly. A few states or Commonwealths requires a man to vote in the EC for the candidate he supported. However, it has happened where a EC voted for someone else. Suppose that were to happen it that single voted determined the outcome of an election. In addition, two states and possibly a Commonwealth allots votes by congressional district vote of the constitutes. Theoretically a President candidate could win a majority of the votes but loose every Congressional district save one.
So the question is - should we have a runoff type of election?
Simply not the way it was meant to be. States don't even have to have a popular vote to choose electors. They can choose them any way they want. In the vote for president the popular vote means nothing, and shouldn't unless a state chooses to select their electors that way.
In 47 out of 50 States or Commonwealths the plurality (not necessarily majority) of the popular vote does determine the outcome of the voting for that state or Commonwealth in the Electoral College.
In a few extremely rare situations a vote for another candidate does occur.
Some States or Commonwealths have outlawed that procedure.
and I like it - I like it very much!!!
in fact for congress, I would like an additional form of proportional voting.
That is, lets suppose a State or Commonwealth has 20 Congressman.
The makeup of Congress should be made up based on the political registration.
for example is 33% of the population is Republican than they should get 33% of the seats, is 40% are Dems - 40% of the seats should go to them....
Instant runoff elections solve this problem. The voter lists his first, second, third . . . choice. If there is no clear winner the computer the computer scratches the candidate with the fewest votes and recalculates until there is a majority winner. This saves the cost of primary elections.
I am curious about your persistence in using these terms - Do you think the Constitutional Convention should have started the preamble with 'We the people of the United States and Commonwealths...?'
com·mon·wealthNoun/ˈkämənˌwelTH/
1. An independent country or community, esp. a democratic republic.
2. An aggregate or grouping of countries or other bodies.
More »
Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster
Until Lincoln's Revolution put the final nail in our coffin, the USA was a confederation of sovereign states. Now we are 50 provinces of the USA.