In response to:

Electoral College

qlangley Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 11:09 AM
That depends on the state. The lump-sum allocation makes sense for a moderately sized swing state, say, Colorado (which actually considered a proportional system a few years ago, and sensibly rejected it). Colorado's nine electoral votes are worth fighting for. In a proportional allocation Obama would have got five votes and Romney four. That one extra vote would not be worth the effort. But the lump sum allocation makes no sense for California, Texas or New York. All three were ignored in the presidential election, except when the candidates were passing round the begging bowl. Their votes were not worth fighting for.
The United States Constitution provides for an indirect election of the President. That is, you didn't vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney last week; you voted for electors pledged to vote for one or the other.

The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which superseded a large section of Article II, Section 1) suggests says that the ballots of the electors in the several states having marked their ballots for President and Vice President shall

"transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the...