thoughts on the electoral college system?

[oinco]

Please let me know if I am missing something....but I really cannot see any currently viable reason for maintaining the electoral college system. It made sense when vote counts took many days to get from the West back to the East....but since they invented/implemented that whole telegraph system we really should be able to do near real-time popular vote right?
I see reasons many generations ago, but now demographics of our population would seem to be able to unfairly influence EC votes in a manner opposite of the original spirit of the law? Or was the original spirit of the law less puritan than I think?

Yes, this may be more than slightly anti-CA. etc.

[Mtn.man]

I feel their usefulness has gone.

[BPTactical]

It wont go away.

It is the one thing that got Oboingo erected- oops- elected.

[RYAN50BMG]

It's the one thing that kept Al Gore OUT of office. Without the Electoral College, half a dozen states would decide who is president. With the EC, it forces candidates to get out to smaller(pop. wise) states that would'nt otherwise get two seconds.

[BPTactical]

It's the one thing that kept Al Gore OUT of office. Without the Electoral College, half a dozen states would decide who is president. With the EC, it forces candidates to get out to smaller(pop. wise) states that would'nt otherwise get two seconds.

point

[tonantius]

The electoral college system is genius. It prevents a few states from electing a president. It requires a candidate to be elected by a widespread part of the nation. It is the difference between democracy and a republic. We want a republic like early Rome, not a democracy like Venezuela.

[oinco]

Thanks all for your responses...I look forward to learning more.


From my under-informed point of view- didn't it seem like the "other" side gained momentum when the media(dem) made such a case for Gore in FL against Bush? If we did not have the EC, I would have guessed that there would have been less of a media-stirred prodding?
From a small soapbox, I would offer that maybe that toe hold may be the tipping point which helped the current regime into power? What other state could foul-play nepotism be used against the opposing party?

please forgive me if I have my facts goofy. I did not go the range today.

ryan50bmg....I hope that is truly how the EC works...but to me it seems that the opposite is true- swing states get to decide-
Red votes red Blue votes blue- campaigning goes on primarily in the swing states at calculated times to yield best results- to me that says that only the swing states are where the action is, ergo - not necessarily a popular vote?
Especially in a "two party" system. I think my reluctance would change if we had viable additional parties and fact seeking voters.

In a winner-take-all EC, CA and TX especially, do not potentially represent (factually) voters preference-Example: if say 51% of the vote goes one way....all the weight of those states "rounds" up to 100% instantly instead of carrying that 51% to the final tally alone.

so if 51% x 55 EC votes for CA were carried that would equal 28/55ths not 55/55ths?? so 27 EC votes don't matter now-and in fact their intention has been reversed?


If the EC was used as in Maine where it is NOT a winner-take-all vote and was majority rule-I could be more at ease with it currently.
So, if the proponents say the EC is to protect smaller states-to me that is entirely different than protecting an individuals right to a vote that matters?
What am I missing?

Respectfully