[macintologist]

I've read many articles and threads in support and against the electoral college. Here's an excerpt from a site that should sum up some of it pretty well.

Critics say the current system is unfair, unnecessary, and should be abolished. They claim that the Electoral College causes candidates to ignore states where the outcome is certain in favor of states where polls say the contest is close. For example, Massachusetts is usually safely in the Democratic column on election day. Therefore, Democrats don't need to worry about it, while Republicans can by-pass it.
However, if the Electoral College were abolished and the popular vote tally were used, each side might find it useful to campaign in Massachusetts, even though the state might remain in the Democratic column.
Supporters of the Electoral College want to keep it because it forces candidates to pay attention to small states as they put together winning numerical strategies. In the 2000 campaign, for instance, both Gore and Bush devoted considerable attention to such relatively small states as Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Wisconsin (11 electoral votes). Polls indicated a close election in each state.

So that sounds fair. But here's what I don't understand. This is plain and simple: Gore won about 500,000 more votes than Bush. Gore wins. Why does someone need a complicated explanation for this when it's simple. Why should the candidate with less votes win the presidency? It's amazing that no one in congress is working to reform the electoral college.

[boots]

Originally posted by macintologist:
I've read many articles and threads in support and against the electoral college. Here's an excerpt from a site that should sum up some of it pretty well.


So that sounds fair. But here's what I don't understand. This is plain and simple: Gore won about 500,000 more votes than Bush. Gore wins. Why does someone need a complicated explanation for this when it's simple. Why should the candidate with less votes win the presidency? It's amazing that no one in congress is working to reform the electoral college.

For the same reason we have a bicameral system. So smaller states (such as MN or WI) have as much (more more nearly as much) pull as large states like California.

The house is by population, and the senate is set: 2 per state. Legislation must go through both to be passed.

This is not an endorsement of the process we have, just giving you some rational. There is a danger in letting large states (by population) like CA and NY have more say individually than a number of small states put together. The problem is concentration of population and the fact that what is good for CA is not necessarily good for MN/WI. The electoral college is to level the playing field a bit.

Solve that problem (population vs geography) and we might have a better electoral system.

[boots]

dp

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macintologist:
This is plain and simple: Gore won about 500,000 more votes than Bush. Gore wins. Why does someone need a complicated explanation for this when it's simple. Why should the candidate with less votes win the presidency?

I agree with Boots. Also realize that all candidates understand how the electoral process works, so they campaign with electoral-based strategery in mind.

It is quite ridiculous to continue to claim that 'Gore" should have won. The fact remains that, as the game is played, he didn't win (albeit by the slimmest of margins).

In football, the winner is not the team with the most yardage, but rather the team with the most points. Funny - I don't see the total yardage leader in the NFL complaining that they are not champions. Perhaps it's because they know how the game is played and how the winner is determined.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by boots:
For the same reason we have a bicameral system. So smaller states (such as MN or WI) have as much (more more nearly as much) pull as large states like California.

That's not quite it, but it's fairly close. The electoral college and bicameral legislature are both compromises. Small states were afraid -rightly- that they would be ignored in a pure-proportional system, because why bother with the little guy when the ones with all the clout are the only ones that matter? Therefore, they wanted a system where each state had an equal vote.

Large states saw this -rightly- as a power grab by small states. Why should a small state have as much power as a state with many more people? After all, if government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people" then shouldn't there be proportion?

Both of these, it was recognized, were valid concerns. A law which had appeal in many states -each having different cultures, interests, and needs- was in its own way as valid as a law which appealed to large raw numbers of people. Indeed, most of the time these two numbers would agree.

The compromise, in terms of the legislature was to run laws through both tests: depth of appeal (number of people) and breadth of appeal (number of states).

The Electoral College is another example of compromise on this issue. This time, though, the Framers took a different approach: instead of using two bodies with different methods of representation, one body was used with a hybrid system. The effect is still almost, but not quite, proportional; California still has more power than South Dakota, but only 17 times as much rather than 52.

Usually, the popular vote and electoral votes agree. The Bush/Gore election was the fourth time in U.S. history that they have not, and it had not happened for over a century before then.

The Democrats and Republicans have, it seems, polarized around the issue of depth vs. breadth of appeal again, each arguing one as more important than the other. Both have very valid arguments for their point. I will be honest; I think I'm a little more inclined to agree with the Republican argument that breadth of appeal is more important, simply because there is only one President at a time, and therefore that person must be the representative of the thousands of different cultures one can find in the US. If someone can find a broad base of appeal in many areas, this provides a better base on which to build a mandate than a person who has many people who all live within a very narrow range of cultures. It's not important enough that it should be an overriding factor, but it's enough that on those rare occasions when the two numbers disagree, breadth of appeal ought to take precedence.

[boots]

Thanks for elaborating the details. Your explanation is what I was going for, but I was also trying to be very brief. When you are brief, you often lose exactness and nuance. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

[spacefreak]

The Dallas Mavericks led the NBA in scoring. If a win is determined by ho scores the most points, shouldn't the Mavericks be crowned NBA champions? I mean, it's ridiculous that the Spurs, who were only 12th in the league in scoring, can claim the NBA title.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It is quite ridiculous to continue to claim that 'Gore" should have won. The fact remains that, as the game is played, he didn't win (albeit by the slimmest of margins).

It's not a 'game' and should not be a contest between states.

If every eligible voter gets one vote, what's not fair? Who cares where you live, your vote is identical to mine.

I'm trying to decide if I will vote for the next president, as my vote has no value. I will only vote when my actual vote counts.

I have yet to see anything in this thread that even comes close to justifying a very tiny minority of people electing our presidents.

[BRussell]

We've been around and around on this many times, but IMO the electoral college does not help small states, it hurts them. If you live in my state, Montana, you are part of a group that can only sum to 3 electoral votes, and therefore politicians don't give a damn about you. If you're a California voter you're part of a 54-vote state, and therefore like unto Gods. I think large states get more attention with our current system than they otherwise would.

In addition, the closeness of the state in the polls plays a huge role. If you're in a swing state that's at least mid-sized, you're also like unto Gods.

If there was no electoral college, your vote would count the same regardless of the state in which you reside. One person = one vote. One Montanan's vote = one Californian's vote.

I know if you look at the ratio of voters-to-electoral-votes, the ratio favors smaller states, who get the most bang for their buck out of those extra two electoral votes per state. But I think you have to make a distinction between 1) the electoral college itself, i.e., basing the presidential election on states' rather than citizens' votes, and 2) the manner of apportionment of those votes, i.e., summing senate and house seats, thus giving extra votes to small states via the Great Compromise.

I think the electoral college hurts citizens in small states, and then the manner of apportionment of the electoral votes corrects for that problem slightly, but not completely.

To me, the key element that's often overlooked is that the electoral college was originally designed to be a non-democratic process. The electors were appointed and could vote however they wanted. There were no citizen votes to determine what the electors did. So the whole issue of "popular vote vs. electoral college" didn't even arise. I'm not sure that the framers would have wanted the electoral college if there was a popular vote that could be inconsistent with the electoral vote.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The Dallas Mavericks led the NBA in scoring. If a win is determined by ho scores the most points, shouldn't the Mavericks be crowned NBA champions? I mean, it's ridiculous that the Spurs, who were only 12th in the league in scoring, can claim the NBA title.

I think you analogies are actually more ridiculous than the Mavericks claiming the NBA title. You should take example on Boots and Millienium for the art and manner of making a point.

villa

[zigzag]

What BRussell said. The justifications usually given for the modern electoral system don't comport with reality.

For one thing, the electoral system has superseded the popular vote only once in modern times (2000), and only a few times in history. Before 2000, Republicans won the White House in 5 of the previous 8 elections and 7 of the previous 12 without needing the electoral college. This pretty much disposes of the argument that the electoral college is needed to "protect the minority party" or "protect the smaller states" or "add breadth to depth."

The idea that it encourages campaigning in small states isn't supported by the facts. It only encourages campaigning in close states, and the bigger the better. It also effectively disenfranchises minority party voters like BRussell in states that are overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat. Why bother campaigning or voting in such states when everyone knows it won't make a difference?

The original concept of the electoral college was of a deliberative body that truly served the purpose of equalizing and protecting the interests of the various states (if not the average citizen). The current winner-take-all system has nothing to do with the original concept - it's just a ham-handed way of reallocating the popular vote. If we're going to rely on both the popular vote and the electoral system, it should at least be proportional as it is in Maine. Winner-take-all serves no legitimate purpose as far as I can tell.

[thunderous_funker]

BRussell pretty much nailed it.

As for the issue of breadth and depth of support, the only honest way to achieve that is Instant Runoff Voting. The current system merely declares the largest minority the winner and has resulted in total stagnation in the party system.

[BlackGriffen]

I, personally, think that there is something to the "depth and breadth" thing. Without it, geographical division is more possible.

I will say, though, that the electoral college is a lousy, lousy way to achieve 'breadth and depth."

If you want to require breadth and depth, then require it, damn it.

Breadth: No person shall be electable as president who does not win 1/3 of the votes in 2/3 of the states (or some similar less than half of the population more than half of the states requirement). You could even let individual states decide what fraction of the voters they think is appropriate (provided it's strictly less than half), and just require the 'approval' of X fraction of states.

Depth: Of those who meet the breadth requirement, the candidate with the most votes wins.

Simple, no?

I also prefer a slightly different voting system, but I think that this would work with any voting system (though the exact fractions in the breadth category do depend on voting mechanics because there are limits based on what vote count is possible).

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I, personally, think that there is something to the "depth and breadth" thing. Without it, geographical division is more possible.

I will say, though, that the electoral college is a lousy, lousy way to achieve 'breadth and depth."

Right - I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept, I'm just not sure the system as it presently exists is a very sensible way to do it, or that it has made a genuine difference in fact.

[boots]

I believe I was careful not to endorse the electoral collage. Just giving the reason behind why it isn't a straight-forward one person - one vote process.

I think it stinks. But I don't have a better solution. I think the depth and breadth argument is valid...just not the solution that was dreamed up.

Seems like we should have three tiers for choosing. Popular, Electoral, and something else to break the tie when the electoral and the popular don't agree.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by boots:
Seems like we should have three tiers for choosing. Popular, Electoral, and something else to break the tie when the electoral and the popular don't agree.

Or, we can just keep doing it the way it's been done. The candidates all know the routine. Their gameplans and strategies all focus on winning the electoral vote.

We are a republic, comprised of individual states. Now, if you want to get rid of states and their sovereignty, eliminating all state governments and boundaries, then I would understand going straight to the popular vote to decide. But until that day comes, I still support the electoral system.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by villalobos:
I think you analogies are actually more ridiculous than the Mavericks claiming the NBA title. You should take example on Boots and Millienium for the art and manner of making a point.

I'm sorry you didn't like my analogy. Thanks for the recommendation, too.

I was at least shooting for the topic, even if it was from three-point land. Did you have anything on topic to say, or did you just want to yell cheap-shots from the rafters?

[tie]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The Electoral College is another example of compromise on this issue. This time, though, the Framers took a different approach: instead of using two bodies with different methods of representation, one body was used with a hybrid system. The effect is still almost, but not quite, proportional; California still has more power than South Dakota, but only 17 times as much rather than 52.

Exactly. A vote in South Dakota is worth three votes in California. This is wrong.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm sorry you didn't like my analogy. Thanks for the recommendation, too.

I was at least shooting for the topic, even if it was from three-point land. Did you have anything on topic to say, or did you just want to yell cheap-shots from the rafters?

Well, you might think you were shooting for the topic.... I just wanted to make sure you weren't coming back with the team who had the most home runs and did not win the World series, or the team who had the most goals and did not win the Stanley cup, or what not....

As far as the electoral college, the topic has been discussed here already. It is definitely outdated in my opinion. I understand the idea of 'protecting' the smaller states, but as it has been discussed above, politicians nowadays attached themselves to a couple of 'key'states, making the point of smaller states being important moot.
Besides there is another theory about the college : there was a suspicion at the time that the the voters were not 'educated' enough to make a wise decision (which by the way is probably still true but nonetheless), and especially the mass communication campaign did not exist : there was then the need for a 'layering' in the electoral process. I don't think this is useful anymore. I don't think it is beneficial for the american democracy that one people be not one vote.

villa

[fireside]

i dont know how to really explain this. but we shouldnt divide votes into states. we shouldnt say "california has 1000 democratic votes and 1000 republican votes." we should be like, the total democratic vote for the entire country is 1,000,000 and the total republican vote for the entire country is 1,000,000. i hope you can try to understand what i am trying to say. we shouldnt devide votes to states, since, does it really matter in the long run? yea, you can win california, but does that mean you won the presidency? no, you just won california, big deal.

i kinda think this is what the electoral college is trying to do, equalize the votes per state, but then how come california gets 54 electoral votes and rhode island gets 10? shouldnt all states get 30 votes?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by villalobos:
there is another theory about the college : there was a suspicion at the time that the the voters were not 'educated' enough to make a wise decision (which by the way is probably still true but nonetheless).

Sounds a lot like the Gore arguments for recounting, and recounting, and recounting, and recounting the votes in Florida - that the voters were not smart enough to work a punchcard.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by tie:
Exactly. A vote in South Dakota is worth three votes in California. This is wrong.

Ack; you still don't get it.

A vote in South Dakota is meaningless. So is a vote in California, or Florida, or pretty much anywhere else. This would be just as true under a direct popular vote as it is under the EC, simply because of the sheer number of votes being case. The 2000 elections might be considered an edge case, but the voting method there was so screwed up that we'll probably never know what really happened, no matter how many recounts are performed or who does the counting.

It's only when many votes are grouped together that they have any kind of power. The semi-proportional nature of the Electoral College reflects this. Each state gets an amount of power roughly proportional to its size, but adjusted just enough that it doesn't get out of hand.

Or, to put it another way: should California be worth 52 times as much as South Dakota, for no better reason than a difference in numbers? I don't think so. Certainly it should get more representation, but that much more?

[Logic]

One thing.

How often is this system "upgraded"? I guess the population of certain states have changed over the last years meaning that some states are getting bigger and others are getting smaller. Does this change have any effect on how many electoral votes each state gets?

Also, if it is changed to follow the population changes who does it and what are the requirments for doing so?

I hope you understand what I'm asking about. Didn't get enough sleep tonight.

[boots]

Originally posted by Logic:
One thing.

How often is this system "upgraded"? I guess the population of certain states have changed over the last years meaning that some states are getting bigger and others are getting smaller. Does this change have any effect on how many electoral votes each state gets?

Also, if it is changed to follow the population changes who does it and what are the requirments for doing so?

I hope you understand what I'm asking about. Didn't get enough sleep tonight.

I think it depends on census data. That would mean every 10 years for an "update." This isn't gospel, though. I just remember reading/hearing that once. So it could be totally bogus...but it makes sense.

[boots]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Or, we can just keep doing it the way it's been done. The candidates all know the routine. Their gameplans and strategies all focus on winning the electoral vote.

We are a republic, comprised of individual states. Now, if you want to get rid of states and their sovereignty, eliminating all state governments and boundaries, then I would understand going straight to the popular vote to decide. But until that day comes, I still support the electoral system.

I see your points, and will not argue them. I was simply saying that the compromise used for the electoral college was not (viewed through our eyes now) as good a compromise as the bicameral legislature. And I offered some thoughts on how to make it a better compromise. You'll note that I am not a proponent of only a "popular vote" system. I believe very strongly in the federalist system we have.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by boots:
I think it depends on census data. That would mean every 10 years for an "update." This isn't gospel, though. I just remember reading/hearing that once. So it could be totally bogus...but it makes sense.

That's correct.

The census was mandated for purposes of determining the correct number of representatives in Congress, the first numbers having been based on rough estimates. The number of electors in a state is determined by the number of representatives (which varies in population) plus the number of senators (always two). When the number of representatives changes, so does the number of electors.

FUN FACT: The Constitution mandated that a census take place no later than three years after its ratification, and no less often than every ten years after that. Theoretically the government could hold censuses (censi?) more often than this, but it could be argued that it takes that long for trends in population change to really show.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by boots:
I believe I was careful not to endorse the electoral collage. Just giving the reason behind why it isn't a straight-forward one person - one vote process.

I think it stinks. But I don't have a better solution. I think the depth and breadth argument is valid...just not the solution that was dreamed up.

Seems like we should have three tiers for choosing. Popular, Electoral, and something else to break the tie when the electoral and the popular don't agree.

Arm wrestling?

An interesting solution would be to give the Presidency to the winner of the electoral college vote, and the vice presidency to the winner of the popular vote (if they want the job).

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ack; you still don't get it.

A vote in South Dakota is meaningless. So is a vote in California, or Florida, or pretty much anywhere else. This would be just as true under a direct popular vote as it is under the EC, simply because of the sheer number of votes being case. The 2000 elections might be considered an edge case, but the voting method there was so screwed up that we'll probably never know what really happened, no matter how many recounts are performed or who does the counting.

It's only when many votes are grouped together that they have any kind of power. The semi-proportional nature of the Electoral College reflects this. Each state gets an amount of power roughly proportional to its size, but adjusted just enough that it doesn't get out of hand.

God, I thought I had made this clear to you last time. Because power/representation is relative, it's a zero sum game. You cannot increase the power/representation of one group without decreasing the power/representation of another. End of story.

Or, to put it another way: should California be worth 52 times as much as South Dakota, for no better reason than a difference in numbers? I don't think so. Certainly it should get more representation, but that much more?

In a straight popular system, that wouldn't be what happens and you know it. The vote of a californian would be worth exactly the same as the vote of someone from another state. That is, assuming you don't have a winner take all state. It just so happens that people who are clumped up (in cities, not states - population density is what's important here, not imaginary boundaries) are easier to reach all at once, so politicians will tend to pander to them.

The electoral college, as it stands, encourages both parties to ignore 'safe' states and to campaign heavily in swing states. Guess what that means for anyone in the minority party in the 'safe' states. That's right, completely, 100% disenfranchised.

The system I proposed accomplishes both: 1 person gets 1 vote, and a candidates support has to be reasonably well spread out among the states.

Here's something important to consider: the founding fathers didn't know jack about statistics comparatively. With more than 200 years of advances in the field, don't you think that we could craft a better system that accomplishes both goals (broad & deep) than those farmers could?

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

I'll weigh in to say that the stated advantages of the electoral college have NOTHING to do with actual voting.
In short, its to make sure candidates give equal weight during CAMPAIGNING so that individual states will get attention.
In other words, it works best as a carrot to make politicians actually travel on their campaigns, and pay a disproportinate higher attention, in general, to states that are smaller in population.
Does it accomplish that? not consistently. As has been pointed out, pivotal states regardless of size can have disproportionate influence over the election.
So....why should something designed (or at least utilized) at present to coerce candidates to pay more attention to certain states be the ultimate arbiter of who gets elected?
Those are two different goals:
1. To force the candidate to pay attention
2. To represent the will of the people in determining an election.
The electoral college MIGHT do #1 sufficiently, but that does not mean it should be the best tool to accomplish #2. In fact, as we've seen, its lousy at #2 in close races.

[fireside]

herm, i guess this is what i was trying to say earlier. states shouldnt be won. just because california got 500 more democratic votes doesnt mean all the votes should go to the democratic party. even though we are a united states with individual governments, etc, we are still voting for the president of ALL the states, so we should all be equal and states shouldnt be won, it should be that 1 vote is 1 vote, and state lines dont matter.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I, personally, think that there is something to the "depth and breadth" thing. Without it, geographical division is more possible.

I will say, though, that the electoral college is a lousy, lousy way to achieve 'breadth and depth."

If you want to require breadth and depth, then require it, damn it.

Breadth: No person shall be electable as president who does not win 1/3 of the votes in 2/3 of the states (or some similar less than half of the population more than half of the states requirement). You could even let individual states decide what fraction of the voters they think is appropriate (provided it's strictly less than half), and just require the 'approval' of X fraction of states.

Depth: Of those who meet the breadth requirement, the candidate with the most votes wins.

Simple, no?

I also prefer a slightly different voting system, but I think that this would work with any voting system (though the exact fractions in the breadth category do depend on voting mechanics because there are limits based on what vote count is possible).

BlackGriffen

I think that's interesting, but I just think we should be clear that "breadth and depth" was not the goal of the electoral college. Remember that there was no popular vote at the time. From what I've read, the premise of the electoral college was that national campaigns were impossible because of the size of the country and the limited transportation, as well as the fact that they just didn't believe in campaigning. So a popular vote for a national candidate was just out of the question. They also didn't want the legislature to do it because they didn't want the president so dependent on the Congress. So they just used a kind of shadow Congress to do the actual voting.

I think what happened after the popular vote method was tacked on is that people have justified it post-hoc with "breadth and depth" and "protect the small states" types of arguments. But nothing I've read suggests that that was the real focus of the system.

Let's face it - the electoral college is an anachronism. The original justifications for it are gone, because national transportation and communication are of course possible. We've tacked on a quasi-popular vote system to it, so that it really doesn't map on anymore to its original intent. And the inclusion of that popular voting system has IMO caused more problems than it has solved, because the electoral college and the popular vote can differ.

[mo]

The actual original argument for the Electoral College -- during debates over the Constitution's adoption -- was that it removed the selection of the Chief Executive from the passions of the public by having eligible voters select electors rather than candidates. See Alexander Hamilton ("Publius") in Federalist #68:

"It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place. ..."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by mo:
The actual original argument for the Electoral College -- during debates over the Constitution's adoption -- was that it removed the selection of the Chief Executive from the passions of the public by having eligible voters select electors rather than candidates.

Voters did not select the electors back then like they do today. In most states, the state legislature chose the electors until the 1800s. The last state to change over to popular election of the electors was S. Carolina, in 1860, according to the document below.

Here's a brief history of the electoral college from the Federal Election Commission.

During the 1800's, two trends in the States altered and more or less
standardized the manner of choosing Electors. The first trend was toward
choosing Electors by the direct popular vote of the whole State (rather than
by the State legislature or by the popular vote of each Congressional
district). Indeed, by 1836, all States had moved to choosing their Electors by
a direct statewide popular vote except South Carolina which persisted in
choosing them by the State legislature until 1860. Today, all States choose
their Electors by direct statewide election except Maine (which in 1969) and
Nebraska (which in 1991) changed to selecting two of its Electors by a
statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote in each
Congressional district.

Along with the trend toward their direct statewide election came the
trend toward what is called the "winner-take-all" system of choosing
Electors. Under the winner-take-all system, the presidential candidate who
wins the most popular votes within a State wins all of that State's Electors.

Here's what that history has to say about the origin of the Electoral College:

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible
methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea
was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would
be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress.
Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political
bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign
powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance
of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal
government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president.
This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the
State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus
undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote.
Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution
doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without
sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people
would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At
worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to
govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional
Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College
of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can
be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals
selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and
informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on
merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

[mo]

Originally posted by BRussell:

Voters did not select the electors back then like they do today. In most states, the state legislature chose the electors until the 1800s. The last state to change over to popular election of the electors was S. Carolina, in 1860, according to the document below.

The basic point, of course, is still the same: The Electoral College was created expressly to remove the selection of the president from popular mood swings and rash, uninformed decision-making -- not simply to make sure Delaware or Rhode Island's rights were protected.

(Sure has worked out great, hasn't it?)

[Spliffdaddy]

Sure has.

America has dominated the global scene for the last hundred years.

[things]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I agree with Boots. Also realize that all candidates understand how the electoral process works, so they campaign with electoral-based strategery in mind.

It is quite ridiculous to continue to claim that 'Gore" should have won. The fact remains that, as the game is played, he didn't win (albeit by the slimmest of margins).

In football, the winner is not the team with the most yardage, but rather the team with the most points. Funny - I don't see the total yardage leader in the NFL complaining that they are not champions. Perhaps it's because they know how the game is played and how the winner is determined.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by things:

We are obviously blessed to live under such a perfect constitution.