DesertFlower wrote:The Electoral College is a unique method for indirectly electing the president of the United States. It was established by Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution and modified by the 12th and 23rd Amendments.
The Electoral College consists of a total of 538 members, one for each U.S. senator and representative, and three additional electors representing the District of Columbia. Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the combined total of its congressional delegation, and each state legislature is free to determine the method it will use to select its own electors.
Currently, all states select electors through a popular vote (although how that vote works can differ), but that was not always the case throughout American history. In many states, the state legislature selected electors, a practice which was common until the mid-1800s.
All of the above is accurately stated.
The Electoral College is about states rights. It is about preserving the unfair advantage of small population states. The push to bypass the electoral college is an attempt to bypass states rights--a further move towards federalism. Actually, it is an attempt to provide equal rights to the citizens of all states via a "one person, one vote" voting system. The Electoral College is a federal institution.
The US senate has two senators for each state, no matter how small the state is, while the representatives in the house are divided based on population. The electoral College is thus a mixture of the two systems. Accurately stated. It keeps small states from having no say at all but allows larger states a greater say in the outcome. Its a good and fair system. The effect of this unfair system has resulted in five U.S. presidents being elected without a plurality of the national popular vote.
Without the electoral college, the USA would no longer be a representative republic. In other words, without it, we would have a completely different form of government. Without it, the U.S. would be a more representative republic as the election of the president would be based on the plurality of the nation popular vote.
The argument against the electoral college could also be used against the Senate which has 2 senators from each state. So California and New York each only get two. Places like Montana also get two. It's a good argument but one that is not currently at issue. These are states after-all and deserve to be counted as equal partners in the union. I disagree with your definition of equal partners. Take that away and you get taxation without representation which was one of the major causes of the revolutionary war. It would do nothing of the kind, wild speculation on your part.
The 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are Wrong
http://www.time.com/4571626/electoral-c ... arguments/