In response to:

Electoral College Is Democratic, Not democratic

BTC2 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 9:57 AM
Romney lost. The liberals want to blame it on the constitution. With this kind of analysis the whole country is lost. Look at the candidate and ask yourself why Romney was unable to motivate the millions who did not vote for Obama to vote for Romney rather than staying home. It had nothing to do with the electoral college since turnout was down in all of the battleground states and overall in these states Romney was not able to exceed McCain's performance in these states.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 10:13 AM
Agreed that Romney was a pathetic, mealy-mouthed, compromising, flip-flopping political chameleon. But I agree with Chapman that the Electoral College (though a good idea as it was originally conceived) needs to be improved (but not done away with). Apportionment by congressional district would not only do away with the "blue wall", but would also open things up for third parties.

As it stands now, third parties have no chance. In fact, even bothering to vote in most states is an exercise in futility; why vote in CA, which is absolutely certain to give all 55 electoral votes to the Democrat. Or in Utah, which is absolutely certain to go Republican?
In 2000, conservatives were obligated to explain why they supported preservation of the Electoral College even though it produced a victory for their candidate, George W. Bush. In coming elections, their devotion may face a sterner test: Will they favor it if Democrats win the White House even when Republicans carry the popular vote?

Mitt Romney managed to avoid that problem by coming up short across the board. But while Republicans have noticed that the voting public is changing in ways that don't help the GOP, they may not have noticed that the electoral map has also shifted to their clear disadvantage.