The Electoral College is a vestigial remain of Slavery.. It's gotta GO..

[SoCalDem]

It's NOT about the fact that we are a'Representative republic"..
It's not about "heritage"
It's about dilution of large state votes, in favor of tuimbleweeds,snakes, toads, rocks, cows & dirt..

Real Estate should NOT matter..POPULATION should be the overrriding concern.. and if MOST of the people happen to be clustered in some states, and not others..well... SO BE IT..

There is a was to have computer-mapping of states that would incorporate a real representation of a congressional district that would favor no one in particular, but could be a geographical/demographic snapshot of what the state really looks like.

I always remember what a rabid-repube said on camera duing the 2K debacle, when a newspoerson asked him if he was worried about the fact that Al Gore had won the popular vote.. His comment(paraphrased).."Well SURE he won the popular vote, he won the states where all thePEOPLE live"...

GeorgieBoy is the tumbleweed president..his mandate is as phony as he is.





Presidency: Why We Should Junk the Electoral College
... where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly ...
hnn.us/articles/436.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

---

Electoral College's Time Has Passed
... Because of the connection between the electoral college and slavery, people have tried to devise lofty reasons for its creation, but it was created to ...
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-electoral30. 1oct30,0,6673410.story?coll=la-news-comment-letters - Similar pages

---

IRCPolitics.org .. Anti-Electoral College Cartoon Plays "Race Card ...
... compromise, with the aid of the Electoral College, was designed to "shift political power to southern states" and that this was somehow a pro-slavery measure. ... www.ircpolitics.org/news/ articles/2004/ElectoralCollege.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

---

Electoral College Sources at Weirdrepublic.com
... The Tawana Brawley Hoax, Rubin Hurricane Carter, The Electoral College. A Troublesome Element, Vieques Explained, Slavery Reparations Revisited, Three Cheers ... www.weirdrepublic.com/electoral_college_x.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

---

RW ONLINE:Slavery, Capitalism and the History of the Electoral ...
Slavery, Capitalism and the History of the Electoral College. Revolutionary Worker #1080, November 27, 2000, posted at http://rwor.org. ...rwor.org/a/v22/1080-89/1080/elecol.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

---

Editorial--Get Rid of the Electoral College
... Interpretation of the Constitution. More directly, though, the Electoral College was meant to protect slavery. If the president had ... world.std.com/~jberg/ElectoralCollege.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

---

Yale Law School | @YLS | "The Electoral College Votes Against ...
... in 1804 adopted a constitutional amendment (the 12th) that pointedly preserved the tilt toward slavery while fixing other electoral college glitches caused by ... www.law.yale.edu/outside/ html/Public_Affairs/502/yls_article.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

---

The Black Commentator - Black Vote Smothered by Electoral College ...
... the besieged Black citizens of Florida, the southern African American franchise is negated by the Electoral College – a true 21st century vestige of slavery. ...
www.blackcommentator.com/111/111_electoral_college.html - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

---

Garbage House » Slavery and the Electoral College politics/weird ...
... GALLERY. Please sign the GUESTBOOK. 11/7/2004. Slavery and the Electoral College. Filed under: Politics. — Reid @ 11:39 am Quite ...
www.garbage-house.com/index.php?p=550 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

---

[orpupilofnature57]

1. first we have to get lottery speed,accuracy type voting machines

[unblock]

2. electoral college is the best protection against fraud we have!

with the electoral college, there's no point to fraud in solidly partisan states like texas or massachusetts, because they're a forgone conclusion.

if there's going to be fraud, it has to be in states that are pretty evenly split, because that's where it matters. and those states are most likely to have a relatively even mix of party control, so it's much harder to commit fraud.


now consider a straight popular vote across the country.

now, the the most partisan county of the most partisan state, either party has the incentive AND the lack of oversight needed to commit wild fraud. think manufactured or suppressed votes and so on. texas would have 120% voter participation lol.

[rogerashton]

3. Just the opposite.

It is precisely the winner-take-all electoral college that creates the incentive to cheat in contested states. In those states, you fake 1000 votes, you may get electoral votes equivalent to millions of individual votes. Under a popular vote system, you fake 1000 votes, you get 1000 votes, period.

It is interesting how the logic of this post actually supports the opposite conclusion to the one the poster draws. I think this illustrates the power of the status quo -- when one is supporting the status quo, any old argument, however flawed, is good enough to support it. And unthinking support of the status quo is common everywhere, even on DU.

[unblock]

6. what an insulting response.

oh, i'm brainwashed by the status quo. because i just love the status quo so much. oh, and i'm "unthinking". normally i get accused of "overthinking".


try reading my post first.

i didn't say electoral college equals no fraud. yes, you're correct that there's an incentive for exactly the type of fraud we're seeing. my point is that this fraud at least in concentrated in the battleground states, so you don't have to worry about fraud absolutely anywhere. what fraud happens, happens in a few battleground states, where there are more likely to be people in power from both parties. this does not mean it can't happen, it just means it's harder to get away with it.

you focused on a very narrow aspect of fraud, which was the incentive to cheat on a comparatively small number of votes, because the electoral college magnifies this, if done in a battleground state. you are correct that the electoral college magnifies this particular type of fraud.

but you are not imagining the type of fraud that DOESN'T exist now that WOULD exist in a straight winner-take-all entire countrywide election. think about it. what if kansas suddendly produced 200,000,000 votes, 95% of them for the republican? ok, i'm exaggerating slightly, that would be a bit obvious, but you see my point. a partisan state could EASILY fabricate votes (especially electronically) and even fabricate a paper trail if need be, and no one would be able to prove them wrong.

it would be impossible to monitor that many sites with that many outside observers.

with the electoral college system, there are comparitively fewer places to monitor, and bipartisan monitors are already local. obviously, we're not doing as good a job as we should, but it's FAR easier to monitor for fraud with the eletoral college system than it would be for a straight vote system.

[rogerashton]

19. If you had any evidence or any

reason other than your own assertion, it would make your argument stronger.

[unblock]

25. not sure what kind of "evidence" you're looking for here

given that we don't actually HAVE nationwide elections in this country, i obviously can't provide examples.

but i'm mightily charmed by your naive attitude that partisan precincts in partisan states without oversight would be less prone to fraud than the more evenly balanced states.


look, if you want to bash the electoral college, be my guest. it certainly has its flaws. but the fraud angle is one of the few things that works out better under the current system. you might do better to concede this point and then argue that the other advantages of a nationwide vote outweigh the increased fraud risk.

[Pepperbelly]

28. horseshit ...

it was a valid argument. A straight popular vote could well encourage fraud in the states that are controlled by one party or the other.

[unblock]

35. i love it when people back me up with profanity!

:hi:

so refreshing!


honestly, i just don't trot out the expletives enough. so powerful, so concise.

and all to often, so accurate.

[Pepperbelly]

43. I do not know if the problem is congitive or merely perceptive in ...

your failure to grasp a perfectly reasonable argument launched regarding fraud but clearly, you still seem to think that this is about "debate" or "points" when in fact, it is about the explosive possibility of fraud in states already in the pocket of one party or the other is padding the popular vote.

Hello? Is anyone really home here?

[rogerashton]

46. I still haven't seen an actual argument that it is probable,

as opposed to possible. Sure it's possible -- and the opposite is possible, too. (Possibility arguments are like that -- inconclusive).

And contemptuous phrases are not arguments, good buddy. Is there anyone sitting in YOUR chair?

[Pepperbelly]

49. it is always about possibles when ...

discussing something that is not extant in reality.

[unblock]

50. why are you afraid to use reason or common sense?

i suppose it's a mere theoretical possibility that there might be a problem with a fox guarding a chicken coop. i mean, foxes get such a bum rap that no one ACTUALLY lets them guard chicken coops, so i certainly have no evidence that there would be any problem with it....

[rogerashton]

51. I am using reason and common sense.

And I am still waiting for your reasons -- which is what "using reason" means.

Several posts back, I gave an argument (a reason) to think that the danger of fraud is greater when the vote of a whole state is at stake than when only the votes actually stolen are at stake. The essence of the reason is that more is bigger than less! I have yet to hear a counterargument other than "wouldn't either."

Why can't you use the words "reason and sense" to refer to reasons and sense?

[BlueCaliDem]

27. You Can Honestly Claim That After These Past Three Elections???..N/T

[unblock]

36. i never said that the our elections were fraud-free

far from it.

i just meant that the fraud would be far worse in a nationwide popular vote when they can just manufacture votes in waco and sugarland and lubock.

there's no substitute for actual vigilence, and we haven't had enough of that. but with the electoral college, at least it's feasible. nw if only we could actually DO it....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. My understanding is

That the 33,871,648 Californians get 55 votes in the college (2 Senators plus 53 Representatives) and that the 493,782 Wyomingites (Wyomingers? Wyomingians?) get 3 (2 Senators plus 1 representative).

A few seconds calculation shows that if I've got my numbers approximately right then the Californians get 1 vote per 615848 people, and the Wyomingese get 1 vote per 164594.

In other words, each vote in Wyoming is worth about four times as much as each vote in California?

Have I got this right? My knowledge of US politics is not all it might be.

[SoCalDem]

7. You are exactly right.. and the CA citizens contribute a TON more

to the treasury than do the WY folks.. We are GROSSLY under-represented ..

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. so ... you are recommending vote by $$$ contributed

to the national treasury? I can dig the whole "taxation without representation" thing...but this concept is dangerous!

theProdigal

[SoCalDem]

10. Not exactly... just a comment on the facts of the matter

There are LOTS of repubes out here who have "no voice" when they go to the polls..

Over the last few hundred years, we have become a more homogenized country and people are not clustered anywhere.. A look at the purple map proves it.

When the whole thing was set up, only white male land-owners coud even vote, so there was NO diversity of thought or purpose.. That HAS changed..

If the EV MUST be retained...

What I think would actually be fairer, would be to limit the congressional districts to a more reasonable "volume".. If the "smallest district" is 165K, then 165K should be the upper limit for ALL districts.. It would, by necessity, create MORE congresspeople, but that alone, would add diversity to the mix, and additional votes,, It would still allow for "flight..combined with loss of votes", but it would throw enough uncertainty into the mix, that candidates would have to campaign in lots of places.

The arbitrary number that we have is the same as we had when our population was a whole lot smaller.. It would also cut down on the campaign costs, if a representative did not have to "woo" 600K voters for a TWO YEAR position..

The EV should have been part of the Civil Rights' Legislation, but I think feelings were too tender to approach it, and they may have feared that the now-redstates would have voted down the civil rights legislation if it had been part of the bill..

[unblock]

9. yes and no

the math doesn't tell the whole story.

wyoming is solidly republican. that means the 3 electors will be chosen for the republican no matter how you vote.

california leans fairly strongly to the democrats, but it is far more "in play" than wyoming. that means your vote in california might actually make a difference.

so by that light, a california vote matters more than a wyoming vote.


of course, you could have picked different states for your example, e.g., texas (big, solidly republican) vs. new hampshire (small, barely democratic) and my argument wouldn't apply.

my point was just that there's more to it than simple math.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. it is about the construction of the US

It has nothing to do with popular vote. The President is to be elected by the states...not the people. When it comes down to it, the president has (or was supposed to have) very little power as was the entire federal government. It was meant to be a cohesive force between the states and a watchman over rights of the citizens thereof. The problem is that over the last 100+ years we have allowed the President and the federal government to become more than it was ever intended to be.

Because the federal government DOES now have so much power over individuals (where it was not intended to have power) maybe we need to restructure the country...legally. No more 50 states...one state...the US. Let's face it: that is what it is anyway!

theProdigal

[rogerashton]

20. Makes sense to me, but

the unitary republic you mention should still elect its national officials by direct majority vote.

I said "national officials." For the same reasons you cite, the presidency as such should be done away with.

I said, "majority vote." See my comments in an earlier post on this thread about preference voting and "instant runoff."

[bullimiami]

11. I thought so too until they stole millions of votes.

I think the electoral college should go as well but first we need a secure, honest system to vote with.

Really doesn't matter a bit if the elections are rigged.

[SoCalDem]

12. Except for the fact that probably a lot of Kansas Dems do not vote

and many other "blueberries in a sea of tomato juice" do not vote.. Repubes are masters of getting some totally obnoxious measure put onto state ballots, so that their minions get to the polls to bash the gays or the poor...Liberals who have been so demoralized by their votes never counting, may not even bother anymore.

If 118M voted this time, look at the huge number that did NOT vote at all..A fair number of them do not bother because they "know" they don't matter.

[American Tragedy]

32. I know plenty of people who feel that way, and act in kind

In most states, voting is an exercise in futility.

[Pepperbelly]

13. I have one question for you, friend SoCalDem ...

Do you believe that the character of states is distinct enough in it's geographical, social, economic, and local interests to deserve consideration as an entity independent of the numbers of citizens residing therein?

I sort of do. I live in a small state with only 6 electoral votes. My personal day-to-day concerns would differ in ways from those who reside in a larger state, things concrete like local economic development (ie jobs right where I live) that taking away the bonus given in Presidential elections for my Senators, would leave us little expression other than the 4 reps to which we are entitled. I don't know that I'm communicating this as well as I should (it is early and there you are.)

Something that would be a bit of a compromise (shades of Webster, Clay and Calhoun and those other guys that tried to hold shit together in the 1st half of the 19th century), might be to determine all states' electors by Congressional districts and then the 2 extra votes be awarded to the winner of the state's popular vote.

One thing that needs to be changed, even with the Electoral College system is that the state legislatures decide how this works. That is RIFE with potential for trouble-making for all sorts of folk. But then the question arises: if you're gonna tinker with it, why not abolish it?

And we are back at square one.

[SoCalDem]

14. Abolishing the whole thing for starters and making universal rules

would be a good start..:)

Increasing the number of districts (via using smallest state representation ratio) would actually address lots of the issues if we kept the EC...

I do not like the winner-take-all EV provision we currently use, because it really does negate the votes of opposition within a predominantly R or D state..

If districts were laid out by a computer grid (set by population) without political parties even being considered, we would have fairer representation and more accountability too.

[rogerashton]

21. Do the math.

That would actually make the existing problems worse, since the districts are even worse maldistributed in population than the states. And it would lead to even more gerrymandering!

How is it a compromise to make the problem even worse?

[Pepperbelly]

22. No, each is pretty much exactly the same in population.

That is how it's set up. 435 members divided into the population equals X constituents per district.

[rogerashton]

45. That's PURE theory.

Check the facts.

[Pepperbelly]

52. where do you come up with this shit?

:eyes:

[American Tragedy]

31. Not really

I have read studies that demonstrated that presidential candidates almost never address regional issues, even on location; those are handled in Senate and House races. They focus overwhelmingly upon concerns that affect all Americans.

Furthermore, under the current system, almost none of the smallest states are given any attention whatsoever. It would be hard for Alaska or Vermont to argue that they really have increased sway in the race for the presidency now, given that they are effectively taken for granted.

[kodi]

15. its a vestige of federalism where states have rights in a federation

in the american form of federal government, not only do individuals have rights under the government, but states also have rights in the federation.

the united states of america arose from a union of disparate states that refused to relinquish all their sovereign rights in order to participate in a federation.

was slavery a prime driving force for some states? most certainly, but do not mistake the incidental forces at the time of the constitutional convention for the theoretical principle of a sovereign state demanding and reserving certain rights to itself for its decision to participate in a federation.

this is a different thing than "states rights" as used to promote slavery or jim crow laws, because those awful things affect individuals. what i am referring to is the relationship a state has to the federation.

we fought a bloody war over this, and instead of banning states and folding them into a true single political national entity, we chose to keep states as individual entities in the federation, while at the same time demanding from states that they treat individuals as a part of a national norm with constitutional rights as defined by the federation.

one can logically argue that by doing so is a basis for national popular election of the only nation-wide political office of the federation, but by doing so, the rights of the individual states in the federation are abrogated.

the EC is the compromise of individual rights under a federal form of government with states rights in a federal form of government.

[supernova]

16. I'd be in favor of changing the EC

from the winner take all method and let the EC votes be split among a state's voters in purportion to the vote count.

That would make the candidates work for every state, instead of dividing up the country and deciding early on which states are in play and ignoring the rest.

[SoCalDem]

17. Making the candidates campaign everywhere....

With TV as the preferred method, there is really little to "make them" go anywhere..

I wish there could be a dedicated Politics channel everywhere. Candidates would have FREE airtime (divided equally) and could ONLY explain THEIR plans.. it would be against the law to TRASH each other..

No paid campaign ads allowed.. Make themn state their own case for what ails the nation, and tell us what THEY plan to do...not why the other guy is wrong..

A scheduled debate a week for the last 6 weeks of the campaign.. via randomly opened (an UNVETTED) mailed in questions from the public..read aloud as they are opened ..on camera..

[xequals]

18. We are the United STATES of America, not

the united peoples of America. The states elect the president.
I disagree with those who say that we should abolish states and states' rights. The right for people to decide how they want to live on a personal and local level is the valve on the pressure cooker of democracy - the founding fathers wisely knew this. If someone doesn't like how it is in one state they can move to another. People who want to do away with the electoral college and states' rights are usually thinking it would be their views or way of life that would rule the entire country; they fail to think of the reverse situation. A liberal should be afraid conservative rule without state's rights, and vice versa.

There are some revisions needed to the electoral college system - but doing away with it would be a huge and dangerous mistake.

ps. I agree with those who say that the federal government and the president should NEVER have so much power as they do now. We are living in a far more authoritarian country than was ever intended.

[F.Gordon]

23. Bullshit!! We are a "free republic"

:sarcasm:

I couldn't agree more. I argued a number of points on this in the Colorado forum in favor of Amendment 36. As I see it now, I think we should just let Florida and Ohio determine who our next President is going to be in 2008 because it doesn't seem to matter how the rest of the country votes. Florida (with some help) picked our President in 2000 and Ohio picked our President in 2004.

I also have found it ironic that the basis of a "republic" is that the "citizens" are too fucking stupid to make decisions so the stupid "citizens" elect the "smart people" to represent our republic. :eyes: Makes my brain hurt trying to figure that one out.

[depakid]

24. Do we really want to convene a constitutional convention now?

That thought alone is so chilling that people should fight to keep the current archaic system in place.

IRV on a state by state basis- along with Colorado style proportionality reform is the best approach (even though the chance of meaninful reform anytime in the next decade is remote).

[F.Gordon]

26. I agree

IRV on a state by state basis- along with Colorado style proportionality reform is the best approach

and disagree

(even though the chance of meaninful reform anytime in the next decade is remote)

How many states passed "kill the faggots" bills in this last election? And how many states will we see this on the ballot in 2006 and 2008? This was a HUGE successful element of the repuke GOTV campaign.

If the Democrats were smart and organized they could use this as GOTV tool of their own, on a state by state basis.

...I'll be the guy in the corner turning blue from holding his breath..

[Yupster]

29. How's about we go back to the original idea?

The state legislatures pick well known and prestigious citizens as electors who cast their vote for president for someone they think would make a fine president without regard to party.

Then the House of Representatives would choose the president from among the five highest electoral vote winners, assuming none got a majority.

Who needs this whole popular election thing anyway.

In an ideal world, it's probably not a bad syatem, but once political parties were formed, it was doomed. It was changed by the Twelfth Amendment, though a popular vote still today is no where in the Constitution required.

South Carolina was the last state to allow a popular vote for president. That was in 1868.

[rogerashton]

47. How bout: because it never worked that way in the first place?

Check out the early history of the EC -- it has never worked as intended by the founding fathers.

[American Tragedy]

30. The electoral college is a great excuse to not vote

Realistically, I see little point in voting in another presidential election frankly, since my state goes Republican by 15-20 points. My vote will never count.

Of course, if I lived in one of the ten states that decide the election, the fact that I live within those arbitrary boundaries would make my vote crucial. Never mind the fact that presidential candidates overwhelmingly focus upon national rather than regional issues, and it would be hard to argue that there is any inherent reason for a few states to deserve concern over all others.

Seriously, fuck this system. Although I never have missed a vote, sometimes I wonder if I really should validate this charade with my participation. And believe me, I am not the only person with this view.

[shockra]

33. I read that article at The Black Commentator last week

And I found it pretty convincing. I'd never thought about the issue in those terms before.

[UNIXcock]

34. I have never really appreciated the theory behind the EC

I've always believed one vote per person and may the best man win

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Four fallacies believed by EC supporters:

1)Small states have interests different from large states False. Please tell me what Rhode Island, North Dakota, and Hawaii have in common except low numbers of electoral votes. With its industrial base and high population density, Rhode Island has more in common with New York than with North Dakota or Hawaii. North Dakota, with its wide open spaces and cowboy/Indian history, has more in common with Texas than Rhode Island or Hawaii. Hawaii, with its multiethnic population and large tourist industry, has more in common with California than with Rhode Island or North Dakota.

2)That large states would swamp small states. False. Not one state in the Union is 100% D or R. Not a single one. Therefore, if you have a popular vote, all votes count. The votes of Republicans in Massachusetts count for the first time. The votes of Democrats in Utah count for the first time.

No one could win with "just the large states" under a direct popular vote, because all the large states are either swing states like Ohio (so that each candidate would get within a couple of points of 50% of their votes) or have noticeable minorities of the "other" party. In Texas, for example, 38% of the vote went to Kerry. Even Utah and Wyoming, the two most Republican states, went 26% and 29% for Kerry.

3)That the EC prevents fraud False. The EC makes it easier to commit fraud, because the people committing the fraud have to work on only a couple of states. They know that certain states will go one way or the other almost always, so there's no use rigging them. I mean, eyebrows would be raised if Utah suddenly went 74% Democratic. Therefore, it's safest and most worth the trouble to rig the swing states--which is evidently what happened this time. Under a popular vote system, the cheaters would have to cheat everywhere.

4)Under a direct popular vote, candidates will skip the small states. False. Haven't you noticed that they skip the small states now? Compare the number of visits Ohio got with the number of visits South Dakota got. Under a direct vote system, Kerry could not have "written off" the South or the Great Plains, because he would be trying to scare up every possible Dem vote there.


Under a direct popular vote, no state will have power over the others. As the polls close from east to west, the results from each state, whether large or small, will add votes to both columns.

[SoCalDem]

38. Exactly.. "small states"..

MOST campaigning is done via TV ads.. ALL states have TV.. The candidates dole out their visits judiciously because of monetary constraints..

"One man,one vote" actually puts us all on equal footiing, regardless of size, and I think MORE people would vote (which is precisely why the repubes will fight this)..

Regarding cheating.. it's MORE likely with the RC.. Look at the "mandate".. in "safe' states it's very easy to manufacture the extra votes needed for the mandate.. 110K x 31 states - 4.31 million..

It's not possible to eke out 100k in the "designated swing states", so the difference is easily made up in states like Utah, Texas, Florida.. Who in their right mind would even think of challenging vote count in WY, or MT, or ID, or SD, etc.. the "extra" votes are safe there..

[Newshues]

39. no direct democracy has withstood the test of time

They all have failed. Just as soon as the people figured out they could vote themselves a pay raise, the democracy has fallen. *THAT* is why the EC is in existence, it was the only viable alternative that solved the problem of states rights and protected the republic from its citizens.

[Newshues]

40. maybe I should be more clear

Which is worse, oppression of elected representatives that you can throw out of office next election or the oppression of the mob that you have to either convince or kill to change things? Where would civil rights be today based on direct democracy? Affirmative action?

[SoCalDem]

41. Probably where they are right now.. crumbling before our very eyes.,

Civil rights was made into "law", but segregation has not really ended.. It's gone "underground".. The overt signs are gone, but that's about it..

Black people are still made to feel "unequal" when they try to vote.. there is still rampant discrimination in the workforce.. The integration was done grudgingly..and the tempers of those "forced" to accomodate the laws are just seething below the surface, waiting to erupt at any moment..like election days..Do you really think that the voter "challengers" in Ohio were for ANY OTHER reason??

[Selwynn]

42. There are times when we're 50 states and times when we're ONE nation

I don't know what The West Wing has so many good lines, but that was one of them. That is my ultimate answer on why I oppose the electoral college.

There are times when we are fifty separate states and there are times where we are one nation. And one of the times where we are one big nation is when we are choosing the leader of that one big nation. I'm sorry of Rhode Island is pissed because it doesn't have as many people as California, but that's about the same as saying that Rhode Island is pissed because its part of the United States of America - and more of the PEOPLE of the nation voted for one candidate over another.

There is no acceptable justification for any other national electoral system than a one person/one vote system. There is no excuse not to have a popular majority of the NATION elect the NATIONAL leader. A national election is a time where the country is united, and we should not place higher emphasis on the particular political climate of one state over another. I'm sorry if Alabama is a red state and the popular majority of the public elect a blue president. You're part of this nation - this is who YOU are. You can deal with it, or leave the union.

When we elect a national leader, we should vote as a national people, and the will of the total people should count and be FINAL, not redefined or funneled through any other synthetic system.

Period.
Sel

[fujiyama]

44. The electoral college isn't going anywhere

It's a fine exercise in futility debating the merits of the electoral college because the interests of too many are too firmly entrenched (of both parties) in it to be changed.

[rogerashton]

48. That rationale could be made against ANY reform,

be it manhood suffrage, female suffrage, liberty of person, any of the reforms we now benefit from.