In response to:

The Electoral College, Under Attack

disecke Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 10:47 AM
Another way to look at that is that the votes of most people from OTHER states didn't count for much. Why should FL voters have such power when ND or CA voters don't? Because FL is a "swing state" and hence one of the handful of states in which an individual vote can be expected to have some kind of meaning. I'm talking about making your vote count even if you're red in a solid blue state, or blue in a solid red state. It doesn't now - which I define as "no realistic possibility that your vote can affect the outcome". Right now, only individuals living in swing states have votes that matter by this standard.
disecke Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 8:18 PM
We -were- a Republic. Given the XIV and XVII Amendments, we have moved on to democracy, much to our detriment, for all intents and purposes.
jmonaco Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 1:50 PM
disecke -- You almost understand. We are not a democracy. We are a representative Republic. The framers did not choose a democracy because a democracy has severe inherent flaws. The framers were wise. I personally don't want a democracy. The world's most lasting civilization was the Roman Republic (500+ years, though Rome started as a monarchy and ended as an empire covering yet another 500 years of its history). The framers modeled our system after the Roman Republic.
jmonaco Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 1:44 PM
Outsider -- I know this. I think it is wrong for the federal government or other states to dictate to any specific state how its elections should be conducted. Supporting that is support for liberty and freedom of choice.

jmonaco Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 1:41 PM
disecke - any state is a potential swing state. A media or campaign designation doesn't make it a fact or cast it in concrete forever. Look at Wisconsin.
disecke Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 11:19 AM
But in general they won't unless all states have to (because if some do and some don't, the ones that don't will have more impact on the election than those who do).

Even better, just direct election, one voter, one vote. I mean, as long as we're trying to be democratic. The EC is useful only in a system where States can directly appoint Electors without being forced to poll.
ksatifka Wrote: Nov 02, 2012 11:08 AM
Absolutely correct, disecke. Presidential candidates do not even campaign in California & NY (blue) or Texas (red) in spite of the fact that they are our 3 most populous states. If you are in the minority in those states you are truly disenfranchised. All states could, without an amendment, change their EC voting from winner-take-all to proportional (based on congressional district with the 2 senatorial votes going to that states winner). Can't see how this would not be an improvement over the mess we have now.

As Tuesday’s election ticks ever nearer, my fervent wish is a solid electoral college win for Mitt Romney. Not to get greedy, but I’d like it in the bag before the wee hours of Wednesday morning.

I hope this is not asking too much. October’s poll swing and a broadening visceral sense tell me this election may not feature the nail-biting closeness we have been told to expect for months.

But if we are to be ensnared by a down-to-the-wire finish, get ready for the attendant micro-focus on the Electoral College, and the resulting debate over whether it should...