Electoral College or Popular Vote?

[pbrower2a]

Each state should have electores and they should chose whom they wish to vote for. We should have the system that we had when this great land was formed the electoral voters choosing there candidates.

We may not have that in view of a scheme planned by Republican operatives  who intend to split the electoral vote within some states along Congressional districts that they carved out to ensure maximal representation in Congress (and in practice to satisfy corporate lobbyists).  Thus such states as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio would split electoral votes so that the Republicans would get the majority of Congressional districts even if majorities in those states went for the Democrat. States that have a significant split of the vote but reliably vote for Republican nominees for President would not split their votes, so Texas would not give perhaps 14 electoral votes to the Democrat. The Democrat would have a built-in disadvantage of about 40 electoral votes.

This scheme in which the rules are intended to entrench one Party is the doom for American democracy -- unless one believes in the fascist or feudal principle that government rightly representing wealth and power and $crews everyone else is democracy.  The people behind this scheme want a Corporate State much like Italy under Mussolini...

How did this happen? The Republicans gerrymandered Congressional districts so that some would go 70-30 Democratic and the rest would go about 52-48 Republican in good years for Democrats.

There are other ways to split electoral votes, such as in a rough proportion to the Congressional seats, two electoral votes going to the winner of the plurality which would at least reflect the federal system. A scheme intended to consistently distort the results of elections in favor of some clique most likely violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  

...Besides, think of how much better America would have been if the winner of the popular vote in 2000 had become President instead of the disaster that we got.

[pbrower2a]

On the surface, direct popular vote seems fairer, but if you don't live in a big state like California, Texas, New York, or Florida, then you would have virtually no say in that system.

Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.

In a direct popular vote, one vote is one vote, regardless of whether you live in New York City or Hooterville. Let's compare the two systems. Let's say the Republican wins Wyoming by ten thousand votes and the Democrat wins California by ten thousand votes. With a direct popular vote, the election is tied at this point. But in the Electoral College, the Democrat leads 55-3. That means that the ten thousand voters who made the difference in California are over eighteen times as powerful as the ten thousand voters who made the difference in Wyoming. This does not resemble anything even remotely fair. And if you bothered to watch the video that FallenMorgan posted, you'd know that the 100 most populous cities in America amount to less than 20% of the population, proving the absurdity of the argument that big cities would dominate presidential elections in a popular vote system.

The swing vote is now the suburban vote. Parts of Suburbia are now legitimately urban, and parts still have rural qualities. At the extreme an old core city like St. Louis is now dwarfed by a plethora of suburbs that few know unless they live or lived nearby or are have some compelling reason to know about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1950 it was the 8th-largest city in the US. For most people in greater St. Louis, St. Louis is where the local sports teams play, where the museums and concert hall is, and where perhaps a mass employer is located. Of course the Gateway Arch. But living in St. Louis? That's where the slums are. The Metro area has grown while the city itself has been hemorrhaging population. If you have driven through St. Louis you can see that clearly. America has suburbs bigger than St. Louis in population.   

[pbrower2a]

There are any number of ways to apportion power in an election.  For example:  Each state gets one electoral vote. 

Would the electoral college defenders support that apportionment of power?  If not, why not? 

Or, what if a state elected their governor based on a county based electoral college?  Would that be a good idea because it preserved the power of small counties?

Obviously, those ideas are ridiculous for the same reason that the electoral college is ridiculous. 
The President is today truly the leader of the entire country.  There is no principled reason to give Delaware and Wyoming greater power in deciding their President.  The only reason is a desire to protect your narrow political interest or a belief in tradition for tradition's sake. 

State lines often have some historical and cultural significance. County lines are much more artificial, usually aligning with parallels of latitude or meridians of longitude. 

[pbrower2a]

There are any number of ways to apportion power in an election.  For example:  Each state gets one electoral vote. 

Would the electoral college defenders support that apportionment of power?  If not, why not? 

Or, what if a state elected their governor based on a county based electoral college?  Would that be a good idea because it preserved the power of small counties?

Obviously, those ideas are ridiculous for the same reason that the electoral college is ridiculous. 
The President is today truly the leader of the entire country.  There is no principled reason to give Delaware and Wyoming greater power in deciding their President.  The only reason is a desire to protect your narrow political interest or a belief in tradition for tradition's sake. 

State lines often have some historical and cultural significance. County lines are much more artificial, usually aligning with parallels of latitude or meridians of longitude. 

Maybe out west they do, but while we have some straight lines in the county borders of South Carolina, few if any, of them are lines of latitude or longitude, dude.

(I just like saying "longitude, dude".  I'm not usually quite that informal.)

Do you call Michigan "out west"? Unless they border one of the Great Lakes or the state line (unless the state line is with Indiana or Ohio, in which the norm fits) most counties in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan are rectangular or even squarish in shape. Lower Michigan has no natural boundaries (mountains or large rivers).

County lines in some states are drawn with rivers as baselines or with crests of hills or mountains as county lines. 

[pbrower2a]

Do you call Michigan "out west"?

Is not Michigan in the Midwest?

Culturally, Michigan is closer to upstate New York  than to any other part of America except perhaps Wisconsin