The Electoral College is in the Constitution for a reason...

[candycorn]

The “mob rule” seems to work fine in all other nations so that argument is able to be rejected out of hand.

The framers wanted a confederation of states pretty much. This was one of those relics from that stance.

Thank god it was instituted in my view; I prefer it to the “mob rule” if we’re deciding strictly between the two systems of the EC or straight popular vote.

As for the president-elect???? The constitution reads:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

The idea was to move the responsibility to responsible people (the electors).

What the States have done was essentially outsource its elections to the Parties and allows the parties to name their own slate of electors. If a bucket of shit (pretty much our President) gets the most votes of the “mob” (hilariously the same mob some here say shouldn’t decide whom is the President), the electors will happily cast their electoral vote for that bucket of shit. The framers though there would be a slate of electors who were universally respected in their state who would be deeming who is worthy. Now we have party hacks who will do whatever they are told.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

First and foremost, we are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic governed by the Rule of Law.

This tired tripe is tired. Being a republic does not negate being a democracy. To the contrary, being a democracy is a necessary component of republicanism as the Framers understood it.

How hard is it for Left Wing Wackos to understand, that just a popular vote would deprive people in smaller states of having their votes count.

It's impossible to understand. Because a popular vote counts every vote. The electoral college is the system that dispenses with people's votes. Californians voting for Donald are pissing in the wind. Their vote means nothing. Only in a popular vote does every person's vote count for something.

It would take a Constitutional Convention to eliminate Electoral College. Can these idiots get any dumber?

No it wouldn't. It would only require an amendment. Can you get any dumber, idiot?

 

[Care4all]

One man, one vote, could actually strengthen the smaller populated states in this day and age of easy, free movement... instead of just giving them a handout (extra electors)... it could bring more competition to each state, to draw more people in to their states...through better policies and governing within their state...?

 

[LeftofLeft]

...it was one of the compromises the Founding Fathers made so that the smaller states would join the Union.

If the Presidency was decided by popular vote, the large metropolitan areas would decide every election and the small cities and rural areas would never get a say in who was elected President.

Sitting here in Nevada, I don't want California and New York to decide every election.

uhhhh...your state voted the same way those states did.

This time.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Does anyone have any history of The Electoral College being challenged? Has it ever been seriously, intellectually contested or just in some elections the butt-hurt side is simply throwing a tantrum because they did not get their way?

 

[Claudette]

First and foremost, we are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic governed by the Rule of Law. How hard is it for Left Wing Wackos to understand, that just a popular vote would deprive people in smaller states of having their votes count. It would take a Constitutional Convention to eliminate Electoral College. Can these idiots get any dumber?

Yup. The FF were far sighted and very intelligent men.

The EC is in the Constitution so that every ones vote will count. It won't be just the big cities and States with a huge population deciding each election.

If people in the states with a smaller population want their votes to count then the EC is very much needed.

 

[bendog]

...it was one of the compromises the Founding Fathers made so that the smaller states would join the Union.

If the Presidency was decided by popular vote, the large metropolitan areas would decide every election and the small cities and rural areas would never get a say in who was elected President.

Sitting here in Nevada, I don't want California and New York to decide every election.

Seriously, do you think the Founders could possibly imagined LA, NYC and Chicago and entire states having less than 500K people? No doubt the Founders were concerned that sectionalism or a "confederation" of a few states with larger populations, but at the time of ratification the largest state was VA, and of the 5 largest NC also was in the mix. Britain's population was only 3x ours. Simply put, there weren't any megacities. What we have now is URBANIZATION v. agrarian and there simply wasn't any such urbanization. The Founders couldn't have foreseen that.
Population Density Of The 13 American Colonies In 1775

Population of the Thirteen Original Colonies (13 Colonies)


The Gop's relevance is based on the states that don't have coasts, and the South. That's regionalism. NYC has little natural political affinity with Washington State or even LA, and very little with Chicago except as hubs of international trade.

The Founders view was a nation in which white men could find free land and expand. That world doesn't exist. We're not getting rid of the EC, but we're not going to remain the dominant economy when one party can obtain political power by writing off the three largest cities and the majority of the population ... and pursue a socialist trade policy. It's like the Confederates won, and economically that's a very bad thing.