Abolition of the electoral college

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also this thread is weird. Where is the thread starter's first post?

LOL

I'm asking that question myself.
The moderators seem to leave no doubt that they hate me.

Don't ask me how it happened.  But since I try to meet expectations unless I have a reason not to, I'll be certain to hate you from now on.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I hate this conversation. The electoral college is the least of ours worries. We have fptp, gerrymandering, and awful campaign finance laws and we choose to focus on this?

I would like to see how a system other than fptp would work with electoral college in-tact.  That would be the joke of all jokes.

Easy.  If all 50 States allocated their electoral votes proportionately, then the election would fairly often go the House to decide, which is what the Founders, who did not anticipate the rise of national political parties, thought would likely be the case in most elections after Washington.

Assuming that votes were unchanged under such a system, the most recent one to go to the House would probably be 1992. I worked out 1996 for one system of PR by State, thinking it would be the election, but I got:
Clinton   279
Dole       233
Perot       26

However since the wasted vote syndrome is negated to some extent, I think under such a system we'd see more third party voting and increased voting in highly partisan places.

Note that third parties suffer by the use of PR by state instead of nationwide.  Using the same system as I used above, but allocating all 538 EV as a single PR district, I got:

Clinton   269 (-10)
Dole       223 (-10)
Perot       46 (+20)

Which would not only have almost doubled Perot's EV count, it would have sent the election into the House.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Electoral College will be abolished once a third party has established itself.

As soon as that happens each presidential election will get redirected to the House of Representatives, which will result in random winners.

Displeasure within the population will motivate the powers that be to rethink.

Except as long as the EC exists, we won't get a third party.  We might get a new party that replaces one of the other two, but not a stable three party system.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Electoral College will be abolished once a third party has established itself.

As soon as that happens each presidential election will get redirected to the House of Representatives, which will result in random winners.

Displeasure within the population will motivate the powers that be to rethink.

Except as long as the EC exists, we won't get a third party.  We might get a new party that replaces one of the other two, but not a stable three party system.

You'd better take a look at the British election maps:
There you have a stable three party system,consisting of:
the Conservatives (Tories), the Labour Party (British spelling of "labor") and the Liberal Democrats. (plus some other small parties)

When was the last time the Head of State was elected in Britain?  If we had a parliamentary system instead of a presidential system, third parties would be quite likely.  For example, if we had had a parliamentary system, it is likely the Dixiecrats would have split from the Democrats in 1948 and remain split.  Instead, the realities of the our political system forced them back into the Democratic Party until the Republican Party changed enough for them to find a home there instead.

The very fact that we never have had a stable regional third party shows precisely how our system differs from that of Britain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We've had third parties briefly enter the House and Senate before, but never for long or in much numbers.  The last serious third party was the People's Party of the 1890's that ended up being absorbed by the Democrats and before that the fragments of the Whig Party in the 1850's that eventually coalesced into the Republican Party.  In any case, the joke that is the modern Libertarian Party will never become a strong third party.  If they ever come up with an issue of their own that resonates with the broader public, it will be quickly adopted by one of the two major parties. Third parties can help shape politics, but they don't replace the existing parties in the U.S.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When was the last time the Head of State was elected in Britain?  If we had a parliamentary system instead of a presidential system, third parties would be quite likely. 

You're mixing up two things that don't relate to each other:

systems of government and election systems.

For example, if the US parliament were elected by proportional representation, your country would still be a presidential system.

And without a change in how the president is elected, the same impetus towards two-party politics would still be there.  Not that proportional representation is in the cards for Congress at all.  We'd have to scrap the Constitution and write a new one from scratch to have that happen, and that's not going to happen.  It would require the approval of all fifty states to get rid of equal state representation in the Senate, and it would require thirty-eight to approve scrapping the ban on House districts that cover multiple states, without which no scheme for proportional representation could possibly be established.   About the only third-party friendly change in the US electoral or governmental systems that could conceivably happen is the adoption of IRV.

Consequently I think the Libertarians, whom I scorn, will some day become a third party in the political system.
On the one hand they attract Republican voters who oppose war, Christian fundamentalism and restrictions of privacy, on the other hand they attract Democrats with anti-tax and anti-welfare stances.

Experience shows that they don't attract enough of either to matter, and I don't see how that is likely to change.  The only elections they do well in are those in which one of the two major parties has declined to run a candidate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If this election winds up very close with a split verdict Mitt Romney winning the electoral vote and Obama winning the popular vote with something like 268 electoral votes then states one by one will be enacting sweeping electoral college reform and won't wait for congress.

Under anything even approximating a uniform swing from 2008 results, a split 2012 result is more likely to be the Republicans win a plurality or even a majority of the popular vote while Obama wins the Electoral Vote. A uniform swing sufficient to produce a tied popular vote gives Obama a 303-235 EV victory. A uniform swing sufficient to produce a Republican majority in the popular vote still leaves Obama with a 272-266 EV victory. (Without reapportionment the numbers would have been even more skewed in favor of Obama 311-227 and 278-260 respectively, and losing the next state Colorado would produce a 269-269 tie.)

The results of a uniform swing to a tied popular vote has tended to favor the Democrats of late.  Of the last five elections, only that of 2000 results in a Republican win.

Of course, the swing won't be uniform, and such a large EV margin of victory under a tied popular vote after a uniform swing is unusual.  (1984 was the last time it would have produced a >300 EV result.)