Originally Posted by tw-acs
OK, Let's do this by-the-numbers, Shall We?
1.NOTHING about the election of G.W.Bush was done unconstittutionally., Nothing.
2.The Electoral College system was concieved BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. It has many advantages, and one, tiny, drawback. That being that it is possible for a candidate who recieves fewer total votes nationwide to actually be elected. This drawback is outweighed by the other advantages of the system.
3.Many (24) states require, by law, that the electors from their state actually vote for the candidate that carried the state in the general election, thus eliminating the "risk" of a revolt by the electoral college, putting in place someone other than the winning candidate.
4.States have three main routes in choosing electors: the legislative system, where state legislatures choose the electors; a district system, where electors are selected by the people of each congressional district; and the general ticket, or a winner-take-all system, where a popular vote is held in the entire state, and the winner takes all electoral votes. Reform efforts have been made, but the constitution is very clear that it is each state’s own decision of how to choose electors. This is one right that congress definitely does not have to change. No state still uses the legislative system, and only two, I believe, use the district system.
Their is a "statistical" possibility that a president could be elected with only 12% of the popular vote, but thier is also a statistical possibility of the world ending tomorrow. Both ignore the practical realities of why
people vote the way they do, and to what degree geographic location determines voting trends.
5.The electoral college has been vilified for magnifying the influence of smaller population states "Out-of-Proportion" to the general population. Is this a bad thing? In case no one let you in on it, this nation is a "Democratic, Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The will of the majority does not always rule! A little thought will reveal to you why this is a good thing. (This DOES NOT mean that the minority rules, just that they are protected from the excess' and emotional tides of the majority.) There are really only two things that prevent smaller pop. states from total maginalization and national political irrelevancy: A. The two senators-per-state system, B. The electoral college.
I could go on, but I've made my point. I presume you are from a populous state, probably a metro area, and hold polical views that you feel are enlightened. Try to envision a USA where government policy is made and enforced in the way you believe would be best, but your views are not those held by those in positions of power.
Does this alter your perception of the way things should be done?
Winston Churchhill said, "the electoral college system is probably the worst possible method of choosing a president-except for all the others."
BTW, Is MJ the single most important topic in national politics today?
*Glennon, Michael J. When No Majority Rules. Washington: Congressional
Quarterly Inc, 1992.