Electoral college poll by party

[dazzleman]

No, I don't favor replacement of the electoral college.

It forces candidates to appeal across a broader spectrum geographically and among interest groups than would be the case with a nationwide popular vote.

Realistically, the only time the popular vote winner won't also win the electoral vote is in a very tight election, essentially a tie.  In this case, the electoral college is meant to favor the candidate with broader geographical appeal, and it worked that way in 2000.

The electoral college does give more power in general to small rural states, but the idea of states as co-equal individual units, regardless of size, is enshrined in the constitution through the concept of the Senate as well as the requirement that 3/4 of individual states ratify constitutional amendments, a requirement that does not take into account the population of the states that have or have not ratified an amendment.

[dazzleman]

Yes. (I)

I'm yet to see a single convincing argument in defense of allowing a guy with less votes than the other guy to win an election.

Except that you ignore the original ideas of the founders you would be correct. States elect the president not the people. The "people" were supposed to elect the House directly and now they elect both houses of Congress.

Well that's just not democracy if you ask me.  It may have worked fine in the late eighteenth century with only a few states and only a couple thousand voters.  But things change, and the need for more democratic election procedures for our head of state is sorely needed.

Technically, we don't have a democracy.  We have a republic.  True democracy would mean majority rule on everything, with no protection of minority rights.  The electoral college is a form of protection for minority - in this case, small states - rights.  Minority doesn't almost mean somebody with darker than average skin; it has a broader definition, and the constitution is set up with checks and balances to prevent the will of the majority from overrunning certain guaranteed minority rights.  I wouldn't mess with it at this point.

[dazzleman]

We could remove the EC, but if we go to a popular vote, I want extremely strict voting rules. A nation wide voter list, everything computerized with a paper backup, independent firms counting the votes, some way of marking whether you voted (indelible ink, etc).   

The Democrats would never allow that.  That would "intimidate" their voters and be racist, and we could never have that.  Better to allow dead people to vote 5 x each.