In article <1992Nov16.001800.20529@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:
> In article <15NOV199217433014@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> dpm1960@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (snopes) writes:
>
> >It was designed that way, and it works very well. The electoral college
> >prevents candidates who do not enjoy broad popular support from winning
> >national elections, thus eliminating the possibility of a crank with a huge
> >regional following ascending to the White House.
>
> Would someone care to do the necessary research to see if this
> phenomenon has ever actually occurred? I guess you could start by
> looking at the (recently posted) list of candidates who won the
> electoral without winning the popular and ask yourself if their
> opponents had "large regional followings". Then you could ask yourself
> if they were cranks...
>
Well, there was one incident that I can think of, but the "crank" won anyway.
In 1972, an electoral college member from New Hampshire (I think: maybe Maine) voted for the Libertarian candidate, thus giving Toni Nathan (the VP candidate) the first electoral vote for a female.
Nixon won anyway.
rgds-- TA (uucp: uunet!fed!m1tca00 | internet: m1tca00@fed.frb.gov)
