>>The more I think about, the more I'm favoring doing away with the Electoral College. I'm beginning to think that it no longer serves it purpose and ultimately demeans the individual vote for president. Closely contested states become "battlegrounds" with more emphasis placed on them than others. The media watches these states in an effort to determine the outcome of the election.
>>
>>I know some (as I've seen in this thread) will say, "but this isn't a democracy, but a republic", but that's not true either. In in reality it's a Democratic Republic or a Republican Democracy, since it utilizes principles from both.
>
>Agreed. I'm in favor of the overall popular vote winner being the winner ( if accurately counted :-) ) since it would seem to better represent the will of the people as to who they want to "rule" over them in the Republic. To me, in a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," the people should have as much input as reasonably possible. But I imagine many would give me a special "salute" for espousing this position. :-)

Bill,

Not me.. <g>

The Electoral College, while hugely misunderstood has helped prevent what we see people attempting to do right now in Florida in the name of "fairness" Namely - hijack an election.

1) Each state's votes are counted separately. (Remember, we are a Republic who's basis for existence contained as a central principle the separation of power and the dimunition of centrally located power.) This can lead to a situation where the popular vote winner is not the Electoral College (ie. Presidential) winner. I think it's only happened twice if George Bush wins the Florida popular vote. Now and about 124 years ago.

2) Electors voting removes from us the situation where some party contests the popular vote so often as to render the whole election cycle meaningless. If we start recounting votes here why not in Ohio, Pennsylvania, California,etc. Do you really want the lawyers in there? <g>

3) The framers specifically did not want a Democracy. The reason was was that they recognized that the majority wasn't always right. Simple majority rule is really not much more than mob rule. That means that the size of one's constituency equals moral superiority - if you're following what I'm saying correctly. The notion of electors contained the notion that this 'layer' would insulate the elected from the electors and serva specifically as a means of preventing the 'one more vote' problem a simple Democracy presumes.

I would suggest, as always, that folks go back and read the Federalis Papers.