US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Hermit]

And, aren't you from France? Don't you have your own problems?

No and yes. I don't see the relevance of either question.

I don't mind that the President has the right to veto the will of a majority of the elected legislators, even if they are following the will of the people. I don't mind that we have 2 Senators in each state, regardless of population, resulting in the Wyoming (population 250,000) having as much power in the Senate as California (population 50,000,000).

Again, I am not surprised.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't mind that the President has the right to veto the will of a majority of the elected legislators, even if they are following the will of the people. I don't mind that we have 2 Senators in each state, regardless of population, resulting in the Wyoming (population 250,000) having as much power in the Senate as California (population 50,000,000).

Again, I am not surprised.

Why would you be?

It would be quite surprising if anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex would advance the moronic notion that pure democracy is in all instances a good thing. Someone taking that position would be surprising, indeed.

It's kind of like how we place certain issues above popular vote - like....a woman's right to an abortion or the right of a person to express their opinion or practice (or not practice a religion). Democracy relative to those issues sucks. Hopefully, that doesn't surprise you either.

[Ian]

Coito - You completely missed the point of my issue with the electoral college!

Getting rid of the EC wouldn't make smaller states less valuable, or minority-party voters less inclined in those states. It would make state borders meaningless. Candidates would work on wherever people are concentrated - whichever cities or areas they're in, regardless of state - and speak to their issues. Look at a population map of the US, without state borders, and you'll see what I mean. Every vote would be treated equally.

If the election came down to a popular vote, wouldn't each person want their vote to mean something? Think of all those poor Republicans in Massachusets who finally won't be throwing away their Presidential vote on a lost cause!

Sort of a crap example because this is from the website of some Tennessee company, but this is what I mean:http://www.blountindustry.co.uk/images/ ... ee_map.jpg

I did not "miss" your point. I disagreed with it.

Getting rid of the EC would absolutely make smaller states less valuable. You yourself explained exactly why - you COMPLAINED about exactly why. The less populace states, you said, are disproportionately represented because of the EC. And, you are right about that - they get a certain number of electors by virtue of being a state, even if they have puny populations. That's why Wyoming has 3 electors, when if they went by population they would LESS THAN ONE! By population, Wyoming is worth a fraction of one elector. Thus, if we did away with the electoral college, their proportionate representation would go down considerably, from 3 to less than 1.

You are right that in the election the state borders would be "meaningless" in the sense that you'd have a direct vote for the President, but you're missing the reality that Wyoming would still have less influence than it has now because it's people now have MORE influence than their proportionate share of the population would give them.

YOu said, "every vote would be treated equally." Yes! And, as such, the people living in Wyoming would lose the extra influence they have now. Therefore, smaller states like Wyoming would LOSE influence in the Presidential election and exactly like I said there would be even less of a reason for candidates to go to states like Wyoming because instead of 3 electoral votes, they AT MOST can get a few tens of thousands of votes out of the 110,000,000.

EDIT: The idea is that the states vote for the President, not the people. And, that's a good thing in many ways. I can see how people can argue the other way, but it is not fair to at least recognize that there are good and wise reasons FOR the EC, as well as against. Too often on these issues people view them as black and white, without acknowledging that the other side has some points in their favor, even if we disagree.

Points in favor of the EC are: (1) It is more difficult for a merely "regional" extremist party to win the Presidency when the election is decided by winning the states, and not merely population centers - that's advantageous for political stability, and helps make the President someone who has appealed to people across the country, (2) the small states get a larger say than they would with a purely popular vote, and (3) the EC is part of the many important "checks and balances" - one check and balance is against the "tyranny of the majority," - see the following:

The United States

rejected "pure democracy," as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10. They knew that with "nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual," blind majoritarianism can become as great a menace to liberty as any king or dictator. The term "tyranny of the majority" was coined for good reason.

That is why the framers went to such lengths to prevent popular majorities from too easily getting their way. They didn't concentrate unlimited power in any single institution, or in the hands of voters. They divided authority among the three branches of the federal government, and subdivided the legislative branch into two chambers. They reserved certain powers to the states. Time and again, the system they devised rejects simple majority rule. It takes only 51 senators (sometimes only 41) to block legislation that hundreds of lawmakers may support. The president can veto a bill passed by both houses of Congress - and it takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to override his veto.

The Electoral College (like the Senate) was designed to preserve the role of the states in governing a nation whose name - the United States of America - reflects its fundamental federal nature. We are a nation of states, not of autonomous citizens, and those states have distinct identities and interests, which the framers were at pains to protect. Too many Americans today forget - or never learned - that the states created the central government; it wasn't the other way around. The federal principle is at least as important to American governance as the one-man-one-vote principle, and the Electoral College brilliantly marries them: Democratic elections take place within each state to determine that state's vote for president in the Electoral College.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... l_college/

Electoral College empowers Utahns
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Oct 17, 2004 by Jay Evensen Deseret Morning News

12Next
What does New Mexico have that Utah doesn't? It's a desert state with rich American Indian and Hispanic traditions. It is sparsely populated, except for one reasonably large metropolitan area. And it will cast five electoral votes in this year's presidential election.

It is, in many ways, Utah's equal. And yet both President Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry spent part of last week in New Mexico, campaigning with energy, mingling with crowds and tossing verbal grenades at each other. Neither one has so much as glanced at Utah this year, except maybe from 30,000 feet.

The reason, of course, is that this is not a so-called battleground state. The president and everyone else long ago tallied Utah's five electoral votes in the Republican column. It's more of a sure thing even than the Yankees making the playoffs each year.

But there are two more sure things. One is that both candidates would be here right now working the crowds if Utahns were evenly divided over the two candidates. The other is that without the electoral college neither candidate would step foot, ever, in Utah or New Mexico. If the only object were to get as many votes as possible, candidates would spend all their time in major population centers, and they would care even less than they do now about the things important to those of us in small states.

This time of year, it is common to hear people arguing to abolish the Electoral College. This chorus seems especially loud right now because of the problems of the 2000 election and because of how close things look to be right now, but the argument has continued unabated every four years for decades. Pundits here and elsewhere have called it archaic, little more than an afterthought by the Founding Fathers and a holdover from days when people owned slaves and wouldn't let women vote.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... n11485054/

What twisted logic! You and that article's writer acknowledge that Wyoming voters have more influence than they ought to have, therefore we should leave the system in place? Fuck that, and fuck Wyoming!

Doing away with the EC means that there would be no Wyoming vote. No Utah vote, no Vermont vote... and no Texas vote, no California vote, etc.

I'm afraid you still missed the point. Your response kept mentioning states and how, without an EC, the smaller ones would get the shaft. No: without an EC, there would be no states. Not as far as the election was concerned.

Sure, candidates would have to spend more time than they do now in places like California and Texas - whaddya know, that's because there are large populations there. But heaven help the candidate who focuses on a few big states and ignores all the smaller ones!

There would be no geographic battlegrounds. Two battleground states now are Ohio and Iowa. What do those states have that Michigan and Nebraska don't have? A more even political split, that's what. Much to Michigan and Nebraska's loss, who are comparitively ignored. Besides, how much should voters in a state really care about it? I live in Maryland, but I'm a father, a taxpayer, a veteran, etc., before I call myself a Marylander.

A national election would bring a high voting rate from every corner of the union, just just the current battleground states. The "battlegrounds" in a truly national election would not be decided by state borders, but rather by demographics: who can draw more of the Hispanic vote, the AARP vote, the Soccer Mom vote, the union vote, etc. That's where the battlegrounds ought to be.

Then again, I'm not sure how in favor I am of creating an atmosphere of a higher voter turnout and participation, considering I think the average voter is an ignorant knucklehead.
I'm sure you can insert the appropriate Churchill quote here.

[Coito ergo sum]

What twisted logic! You and that article's writer acknowledge that Wyoming voters have more influence than they ought to have, therefore we should leave the system in place? Fuck that, and fuck Wyoming!

It's not twisted at all. It's a reflection of the countries "federalism." You know: http://www.reference.com/browse/federalism

The interest of "one person one vote" is not the only important interest. In a federal union, like ours, the states retain a certain degree of sovereignty, and independent existence. That's why we have, for example, a Senate that has 2 members per state regardless of the size of the state. The electoral college reflects both the populations of the state and the independent status of each state, that's why they get 2 electors for being a state and then a number of electors equivalent to the number of representatives they have in Congress. It's a check and balance -- states, as independent entities, have interests and they are not exclusively determined or represented by popular votes of the citizenry.

It's not "twisted logic." It makes perfect sense.

That is not to say it can't reasonably be done another way. The US system is by no means the only way to do it, but it certainly isn't "twisted." But, naturally, go ahead and refuse to even try to see the merit in something than many people of good intention and of a high level of intelligence, education and experience, too part in creating. They're all "twisted." You are privy to the "untwisted" way.

Doing away with the EC means that there would be no Wyoming vote. No Utah vote, no Vermont vote... and no Texas vote, no California vote, etc.

Yes, I know that, Forrest. However, what we're comparing is the relative influence of Wyoming (by way of example) before and after you eliminate the EC.

I'm afraid you still missed the point.

I haven't at all. Trust me. Your point is not that complicated.

Your response kept mentioning states and how, without an EC, the smaller ones would get the shaft. No: without an EC, there would be no states. Not as far as the election was concerned.

Dude - it's you that are missing it. Just because you make the state entities irrelevant for the purposes of the Presidential election does not mean that you haven't reduced/increased particular states' populations relative influence on the election. Surely you can see that?

Now, Wyoming has 3 electoral votes - it has, using round numbers, say, 250,000 voters in Wyoming. And, let's say the total number of votes cast was 120 million.

With the EC -- Wyoming's population has a relative influence on the election of 3/538 or 0.56%.
Without the EC - Wyoming's population has a relative influence on the election of 250,000/120,000,000 or 0.21%.

See? That is why the article correctly points out that the candidates would have LESS of a reason to go to Wyoming, or any other small state, without the EC, because Wyoming doesn't offer as much of a reward.

So, with the EC, if you win all the 3 EC vote states of Vermont, Alaska, Delaware, DC, Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota, you can take almost 4% of the total votes for President. If, without the EC, ALL of those states registered voters vote for you, you can AT MOST pick up about 1.6-1.8% of the vote, or thereabouts. The EC more than doubles the importance of those states, and therefore causes candidates to consider them more carefully, and when a tiny state is "in play' - then they will address that state's interests in order to try to win that state's votes.

Sure, candidates would have to spend more time than they do now in places like California and Texas - whaddya know, that's because there are large populations there. But heaven help the candidate who focuses on a few big states and ignores all the smaller ones!

If it's ignoring the smaller states that you are worried about, then the EC makes candidates more worried about smaller states, not less worried about them, as compared to a pure popular election. I demonstrated that above, and there are dozens of articles on the internet that discuss the same thing.

There would be no geographic battlegrounds. Two battleground states now are Ohio and Iowa. What do those states have that Michigan and Nebraska don't have? A more even political split, that's what. Much to Michigan and Nebraska's loss, who are comparitively ignored.

Going to a pure popular vote would not increase their importance over the present system. It would decrease it. Certainly, every individual in the country would have an "equal" importance as 1/120,000,000th of the election.

Besides, how much should voters in a state really care about it? I live in Maryland, but I'm a father, a taxpayer, a veteran, etc., before I call myself a Marylander.

And, you are entitled to your opinion.

A national election would bring a high voting rate from every corner of the union, just just the current battleground states.

That's a fine assertion. On what basis do you make it? What's your logic for claiming that more people would vote if the EC is eliminated than vote now?

The "battlegrounds" in a truly national election would not be decided by state borders, but rather by demographics: who can draw more of the Hispanic vote, the AARP vote, the Soccer Mom vote, the union vote, etc. That's where the battlegrounds ought to be.

That's certainly a valid opinion to have. However, it is also a valid opinion to suggest that Montana, for example, has its own peculiar interests that are not reflected in the general population centers of NYC, LA, Dallas, Chicago, Miami, DC. and their surrounding areas. Moreover, having a federal union means something The states are there for a reason, and their interests deserve to be represented.

[Hermit]

There would be no geographic battlegrounds. Two battleground states now are Ohio and Iowa. What do those states have that Michigan and Nebraska don't have? A more even political split, that's what. Much to Michigan and Nebraska's loss, who are comparitively ignored.

Going to a pure popular vote would not increase their importance over the present system. It would decrease it. Certainly, every individual in the country would have an "equal" importance as 1/120,000,000th of the election.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

Sure, the potential for a dictatorship of the majority is not desirable, but the alternative is worse.

I simply can't get my head around the idea that one person's vote is worth twice as much, or more, than that of another is preferable to all votes being of equal importance. It is undemocratic by definition, no matter how you try to rationalise your point of view.

We had that here in Australia. It lead to systematic and endemic corruption, extreme featherbedding of the rural voters and at least one state premier who managed to retain governorship with only 19% of the vote.

[Pappa]

There would be no geographic battlegrounds. Two battleground states now are Ohio and Iowa. What do those states have that Michigan and Nebraska don't have? A more even political split, that's what. Much to Michigan and Nebraska's loss, who are comparitively ignored.

Going to a pure popular vote would not increase their importance over the present system. It would decrease it. Certainly, every individual in the country would have an "equal" importance as 1/120,000,000th of the election.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

Sure, the potential for a dictatorship of the majority is not desirable, but the alternative is worse.

I simply can't get my head around the idea that one person's vote is worth twice as much, or more, than that of another is preferable to all votes being of equal importance. It is undemocratic by definition, no matter how you try to rationalise your point of view.

We had that here in Australia. It lead to systematic and endemic corruption, extreme featherbedding of the rural voters and at least one state premier who managed to retain governorship with only 19% of the vote.

You forgot to mention, it's also fucking stupid.

[Hermit]

There would be no geographic battlegrounds. Two battleground states now are Ohio and Iowa. What do those states have that Michigan and Nebraska don't have? A more even political split, that's what. Much to Michigan and Nebraska's loss, who are comparitively ignored.

Going to a pure popular vote would not increase their importance over the present system. It would decrease it. Certainly, every individual in the country would have an "equal" importance as 1/120,000,000th of the election.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

Sure, the potential for a dictatorship of the majority is not desirable, but the alternative is worse.

I simply can't get my head around the idea that one person's vote is worth twice as much, or more, than that of another is preferable to all votes being of equal importance. It is undemocratic by definition, no matter how you try to rationalise your point of view.

We had that here in Australia. It lead to systematic and endemic corruption, extreme featherbedding of the rural voters and at least one state premier who managed to retain governorship with only 19% of the vote.

You forgot to mention, it's also fucking stupid.

I thought I did... in my verbose way.

[Pappa]

You forgot to mention, it's also fucking stupid.

I thought I did... in my verbose way.

Yeah, you did.

[Ian]

There would be no geographic battlegrounds. Two battleground states now are Ohio and Iowa. What do those states have that Michigan and Nebraska don't have? A more even political split, that's what. Much to Michigan and Nebraska's loss, who are comparitively ignored.

Going to a pure popular vote would not increase their importance over the present system. It would decrease it. Certainly, every individual in the country would have an "equal" importance as 1/120,000,000th of the election.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

Sure, the potential for a dictatorship of the majority is not desirable, but the alternative is worse.

I simply can't get my head around the idea that one person's vote is worth twice as much, or more, than that of another is preferable to all votes being of equal importance. It is undemocratic by definition, no matter how you try to rationalise your point of view.

We had that here in Australia. It lead to systematic and endemic corruption, extreme featherbedding of the rural voters and at least one state premier who managed to retain governorship with only 19% of the vote.

I get Coito's point: that without the EC, smaller states would have less influence. My point is: As they should. It's nice to help out the Wyomings and Vermonts of the union, but larger states get royally screwed over in the process.

Here's a couple graphics to illustrate what I'm talking about.

First, here's a graph of how many electors each state gets based on population.

Wyoming gets one elector for roughly every 200,000 people, while California gets one for roughly every 650,000 people.

In other words, a single Wyoming voter is more than three times as powerful a single California voter! Coito - is that more a case of justice done for Wyoming, or justice taken away from California? Try to keep the word "democracy" in mind when you answer.

Here's a layout of the campaign appearances and spending for both candidates during the final month of the 2004 Presidential election

I trust I don't have to display a map of the population concentration of the US to illustrate the disparity. The EC system not only screws over larger states in favor of smaller ones, but it obligates candidates to focus on certain geographic battlegrounds at the expense of others.

So what's the big deal about that? Well, the voter turnout in places like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania is pretty good, and you can bet the candidates talked plenty about not just national issues but regional ones as well when they were there. But have a look at California, Texas and New York. Hardly any money spent there, and hardly any appearances by candidates. And by the way, they're the three most populous states in the union. Do their regional issues get equal attention? Are their minority voters (conservatives in California, liberals in Texas, etc.) as likely to get involved in the campaigns, or even bother talking to their neighbors about them? The answer to both questions is, and historically has been, no.

In other words, the Electoral College not only effectively suppresses voter participation and turnout in non-battleground states... but the non-battleground states also happen to be some of the largest.


Democracy, this is not.

[Hermit]

Well expressed, Ian. I do get Coito's point too. I just don't think the vote/value discrepancy is a good thing on balance. It's downright undemocratic.

Of course there are a number of people who maintain that the USA is not a democracy; that it is a republic. They too seem to say that as if it is a good thing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well expressed, Ian. I do get Coito's point too. I just don't think the vote/value discrepancy is a good thing on balance. It's downright undemocratic.

Of course there are a number of people who maintain that the USA is not a democracy; that it is a republic. They too seem to say that as if it is a good thing.

It is a good thing. Hardly anybody thinks pure democracy is a "good thing."

Most folks understand that there are times when democracy is bad, like when a majority vote to segregate blacks and whites, or a majority vote to prevent gays from being able to marry. We think, most of us, that there should be a check against such majority decisions.....

And, the US is a Republic, not a "democracy" in the pure sense. We have a system of representatives that are elected by the people to serve certain functions. It's Constitutionally Limited, Federal, Representative Republic. It would suck major ass if it was a pure democracy.

[Hermit]

Well expressed, Ian. I do get Coito's point too. I just don't think the vote/value discrepancy is a good thing on balance. It's downright undemocratic.

Of course there are a number of people who maintain that the USA is not a democracy; that it is a republic. They too seem to say that as if it is a good thing.

It is a good thing. Hardly anybody thinks pure democracy is a "good thing."

Most folks understand that there are times when democracy is bad, like when a majority vote to segregate blacks and whites, or a majority vote to prevent gays from being able to marry. We think, most of us, that there should be a check against such majority decisions.....

And, the US is a Republic, not a "democracy" in the pure sense. We have a system of representatives that are elected by the people to serve certain functions. It's Constitutionally Limited, Federal, Representative Republic. It would suck major ass if it was a pure democracy.

To reiterate:

• Sure, the potential for a dictatorship of the majority is not desirable, but the alternative is worse.
  
  I simply can't get my head around the idea that one person's vote is worth twice as much, or more, than that of another is preferable to all votes being of equal importance. It is undemocratic by definition, no matter how you try to rationalise your point of view.
  
  We had that here in Australia. It lead to systematic and endemic corruption, extreme featherbedding of the rural voters and at least one state premier who managed to retain governorship with only 19% of the vote.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well expressed, Ian. I do get Coito's point too. I just don't think the vote/value discrepancy is a good thing on balance. It's downright undemocratic.

Of course there are a number of people who maintain that the USA is not a democracy; that it is a republic. They too seem to say that as if it is a good thing.

It is a good thing. Hardly anybody thinks pure democracy is a "good thing."

Most folks understand that there are times when democracy is bad, like when a majority vote to segregate blacks and whites, or a majority vote to prevent gays from being able to marry. We think, most of us, that there should be a check against such majority decisions.....

And, the US is a Republic, not a "democracy" in the pure sense. We have a system of representatives that are elected by the people to serve certain functions. It's Constitutionally Limited, Federal, Representative Republic. It would suck major ass if it was a pure democracy.

To reiterate:

• Sure, the potential for a dictatorship of the majority is not desirable, but the alternative is worse.

The alternative is not worse. Constitutional limitations on majority rule have worked for 225 years in the US to protect freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.

The right to abortion would never have been protected by majority rule. The majority wanted abortion illegal, and it took an undemocratic court decision interpreting the fundamental rights of humankind to protect the woman's right to choose.

I simply can't get my head around the idea that one person's vote is worth twice as much, or more, than that of another is preferable to all votes being of equal importance. It is undemocratic by definition, no matter how you try to rationalise your point of view.

It's not undemocratic, not when you look at the US as more analogous to Europe and the EU. The US is a federation of independent states. To sit and scoff at the US without recognizing that the US is not just one big country, but a federalism, separate and independent states, with separate state governments, is to simply ignore reality.

The European Parliament is set up with each country having a number of parliamentarians that are proportional to its population, but there is a minimum number of parliamentarians - currently 5, soon to be raised to 6. That means that the smallest countries, who would have less than 6 MEP's would be overrepresented in parliament.

Note also, in Parliamentary systems, the person holding executive powers is generally the "Prime Minister." This person is not even elected in a popular election! He is just appointed by a majority of the Members of Parliament. Each member of parliament has an equal vote, regardless of the size of his district or "riding." That means that if you come from a tiny district, your vote counts more, because your MP is effectively an "elector" like in the EC. See that?

The US system is, again, a federalist system. So, the people don't, in principle, vote for the President - much the same as the people don't vote for the Prime Minister in England or Canada. In the US, the states hold a vote internally, and decide who the state is going to vote for for President. In England and Canada, the various ridings or voting districts hold votes to see which party will represent them in the Parliament and that person decides who to vote for for PM. Neither system is a pure democracy.

Similarly, also, in the UK and Canada, there is a "House of Lords" and a "Senate" which are positions of inheritance, appointment and ecclesiastical honor. That's damn well not flippin' democratic.

[Ian]

Ah, the old "we're a republic, not a democracy" cop-out!

I knew Coito would say that. Absolutely knew it.

I don't think anybody in their right mind would advocate a "pure" democracy. It's really quite impossible. But our Republic would go on just fine without an Electoral College. I've already got a Mayor, a Congressman, a Governor and a couple Senators doing government work for me. Each an every one of them is elected directly by popular vote within their jurisdictions. Why, then, is the one national-level figure, the President, elected by such a warped system of quasi-democracy? Because it seemed like a good idea in the 18th Century? Well, yes - that and the fact that a lot of people are squeamish about change.

Also, because it inhibits the growth of viable third parties: the Democrats and Republicans don't want any serious challengers to their establishments. Some would call this ensuring stability. I do not.

It's an injustice that most people aren't even aware of. The original constitution held that a black man's vote was worth three-fifths of a white man's vote. That sounds like a great deal compared to what residents of the largest states are stuck with: votes that are worth one-third what they're worth in the smallest states.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah, the old "we're a republic, not a democracy" cop-out!

It's not a "cop out." Nobody on the planet lives in a "democracy," in the pure sense. In the colloquial sense of a government that is largely based on elected representatives representing the people, that's what most folks call "democracy." Obviously, there's a failing in our educational systems, when suddenly it's a "cop out" to call things what they are.

I knew Coito would say that. Absolutely knew it.

Why? Because it's accurate. Britain, Canada, Australia, Holland, Germany, France....etc. etc. etc..... they're not fucking "democracies" either, not in the pure sense. France is a republic, not a democracy. Britain is not a democracy - it's a "constitutional monarchy."

Germany is a "Federal Republic" - for example, Germany's "president" is elected for a five-year term (eligible for a second term) by a Federal Convention, including all members of the Federal Assembly and an equal number of delegates elected by the state parliaments. No equal vote of the people there! The German Chancellor elected by an absolute majority of the Federal Assembly for a four-year term.

Finland is a Republic ----- Italy is a Republic ---- Canada is a Federation, Constitutional Monarchy, and "Parliamentary Democracy," whose head of state is the Queen of England, represented by a "Governor General." The Prime Minister is the leader of the party controlling the Parliament, and there is no general election for the Prime Minister.

I mean, criminy, dude! Calling a country a "republic" is not a "cop out," when that's what it is. What is it that you have against republics anyway? Something wrong with republics?

I don't think anybody in their right mind would advocate a "pure" democracy. It's really quite impossible.

Right, that's why we're not one. So what the fuck are you on about?

But our Republic would go on just fine without an Electoral College.

It might, well. I'm not the one suggesting that the EC is the "only" way to go. I've simply argued that it is not an unreasonable way to go, and certainly not stupid or idiotic - which is what you've suggested. It's a very reasonable system, and there are plenty of good reasons for it. That's not the same thing as saying our Republic would not go on without the EC. Can you make that distinction?

I've already got a Mayor, a Congressman, a Governor and a couple Senators doing government work for me. Each an every one of them is elected directly by popular vote within their jurisdictions. Why, then, is the one national-level figure, the President, elected by such a warped system of quasi-democracy?

It's not a warped system.

And, the EC exists because the President is the President of the federal republic - federalism - meaning he's the president of a union of 50 states, not the president of one single unit. So, the states pick the President.

Because it seemed like a good idea in the 18th Century?

It was a fabulous system when created. However, I don't recall myself or anyone else stating that BECAUSE it was a good idea in the 18th century means that it must be that way now. Quite the opposite. If you'll actually read with some degree of understanding, you'll see that I stated specifically, and unequivocally, that other systems can work just fine to.

I would never argue that BECAUSE something has been around for a long time that it MUST be this way.

I would argue that there were and are good reasons for the EC, that it is not a "warped" system, is not "idiotic" and makes a good degree of sense if someone looks more than a millimeter beneath the surface issues. And, the burden is on someone who advocates a change to demonstrate why it would be materially better to change it.

Well, yes - that and the fact that a lot of people are squeamish about change.

Change is fine. Change for change sake is not a virtue.

Also, because it inhibits the growth of viable third parties:

And, limits the influence of extremist parties, by the same token.

the Democrats and Republicans don't want any serious challengers to their establishments. Some would call this ensuring stability. I do not.

It also helps assure that the President have support across more states than would be the case without the EC. A party running a candidate for President pretty much has to be popular in a great many states. With your proposal, a candidate could run and be on the ballot only in a few states with large populations, totally ignore the rest, and still become President.