Quote Originally Posted by mkemse View Post
What real needs to be done plain and simpe is get rid of the Electoral College, it is way out of date and use only the Popular Vote to decide the Next President
Why?

The first thing to understand about the Electoral College is that, Constitutionally, you as an individual have no right to vote for President of the United States and weren't intended to. The United States is a Republic made of up of the Several States. The intent of the framers, as expressed in the Constitution, was that those States would decide who led the Union (President). It would be perfectly legal, Constitutionally, for a State Legislature to simply appoint delegates to the Electoral College as they saw fit, holding no popular vote at all within that State. It just so happens that all States allocate their Electoral votes based on a popular election within that State.

The second thing to understand is how Electors are apportioned to the Several States and why. This is done in the same way as Representatives, based on the Census. The apportionment was designed to give high-population States greater representation, and consequently greater say in who became President, while still maintaining a balance for less populace States by providing a minimum number of Electors and Representatives. In this way the larger States are not so able to "gang up" on less populated States (typically rural).

Doing away with the Electoral College and moving to a purely popular vote would give a disproportionate amount of political power to heavily populated urban areas at the expense of the minority in rural areas. The President would become a President of the Cities, needing to concern himself little with the needs of those in less populated areas. It would also eliminate the Republic concept, weakening States' rights.

We've already moved away from the Republic-intent of the Constitution by ratifying the 17th Amendment in 1912. This made Senators elected by popular vote instead of being appointed by the State legislatures.

Yes, this "solved" an immediate, perceived problem -- that of corruption and confusion in the Senatorial selection process.

But look at what it's created: a Senate full of career politicians, 80- and 90-year old Senators whose mental faculties are questionable at best, their offices essentially being served by unelected, unappointed staff.

It created an American aristocracy of Senatorial privilege that hadn't previously existed, because the legislatures had typically not sent the same Senator to Washington for four or more decades.

Rather than Statesmen, men who were there to perform a duty for their State and Country, we have politicians who are more interested in not making hard decisions, not doing anything controversial, even if it's in the Country's best interest, and, most importantly, not doing anything that would hurt their chances to be reelected.

It is so easy to look for the simple answer to a complex question without fully exploring the possible ramifications, but altering the fundamental principles of the Republic is not something to be undertaken lightly.