The Electoral College Still Makes Sense Because We’re Not A Democracy

Stick with the electoral college and make all voting at the state level proportional, simple and efficient. Winner take all and the 50 variety of state laws are the issue, IMO.

I'm personally against either the Electoral College or the Winner Takes All system. While 2 states do have a proportional system, they've never split their votes, so you can hardly call it a proportional system.

Also, when saying that those voting against the electoral college have no idea what they are talking about, perhaps not following through by saying that the states with the most electoral votes already are the states that will end up determining the election if we use a popular voting system.

Additionally, if those "cities" you are referring to are the ones that will be determining the entirety of the election, then I believe that the 98% would be a bit of an over exaggeration. In fact, I have already done research on this subject. I realize that I have no idea what I'm talking about because I disagree with you, but bare with me. The following is a snippet from a research paper I wrote in September of this year.

But the strongest argument against National Popular Vote’s call is that abolishing the Electoral College would merely shift the political battles from battleground states to big cities. In a popular election, candidates would have to go where the voters are — and that means rural areas would be skipped. To understand how this is not a truth, you have to know just how big the big cities are. Based on the latest census (2010 Census), New York accounts for 2.6% of the national population with 8,175,133 people. Los Angeles accounts for 1.3% of the national population with 3,792,621 people. Chicago accounts for 0.8% of the national population with 2,695, 598 people. Houston accounts for 0.7% of the national population with 2,099,451 people. Philadelphia accounts for 0.5% of the national population with 1,526,006 people. Phoenix accounts for 0.5% of the national population with 1,445,632 people. San Antonio accounts for 0.4% of the national population with 1,327,407 people. San Diego accounts for 0.4% of the national population with 1,307,402 people. Dallas accounts for 0.4% of the national population with 1,197,816 people. San Jose accounts for 0.3% of the national population with 945,942 people. These are the highest populated cities which combined population make up only 7.9% of the United States Population. So while those top 10 cities will impact the presidential election, it would only be up to 7.9% of the total popular vote possible. Three of these cities are located in Texas and two in California. However, both of those states already are allotted a large majority of the available electoral votes based on the electoral voting system.

Even still, with those top 10 cities you are left with the vote of 92.1% of the population, but by your own words 98% of America wouldn't be able to assist in choosing the president. But all that aside, you don't vote for president. You vote for a slate of electors whom the majority of which aren't required to vote in favor of the popular vote in their states. Additionally, as it stands with the Winner Takes All system, up to 49.99% of the population of every state's voters is ignored. Then this balancing system to give more voting power to smaller states means that in Alaska the population to Electoral Vote is greatly skewed in their favor. Alaskan votes count 2.8:1 when compared to California.

The whole concept of staying away from the "Mob Rule" ideology is disconcerting. The "mob" wanted to go into establishments of business and service without the issue of smoke from smokers. Now there is almost no place you can go that allows it, in most cases city or state ordinances have shut it down. Giving business owners no say over their own services. Now instead of non-smokers just going elsewhere, smokers have to go elsewhere. Are we better or worse because of it? Depends on who you ask. This applies the same to the Electoral College. Will it be better or worse with the Electoral College disbanded? Who can really say. People have their opinions. Me personally, I feel if my vote isn't equal because I live in a state with a large population, then I have no desire to vote.

I hope this information enlightens you a little on the way us people who have no idea what we are talking about are thinking. At least for those of us who are educated and have decided to form their own opinion on the subject. Just because we disagree, doesn't mean that one or the other is lacking an understanding. Just that we have come to a different end result.

So much of the backpedaling.. It's now a fence, btw. More cost effective. Lol

Chief, the article was written prior to the election.

MAJ Charles Blake - I'm aware of that. However, your post was not.

CW4 Angel C. - Of course it wasn't, but my post is in support of the EC - not a candidate. I support the process because as the founder noticed, straight up democracy would be a mob ruled system.

I'm not sure what means other than asking for a down vote.

MAJ Charles Blake - The original use of the voting laws and electoral college.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/commentary-why-the-electoral-college-system-makes-little-sense-today/

SSG Jessica Bautista - This says nothing to support nonsense from CPT Grant.

MAJ Charles Blake - It was a tiny mention and it kind of requires interpretation.