Is there any plausible argument in favor of the electoral college?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obviously not. It's a basic violation of every fairness rule.

But damn, it makes American electoral geography so interesting...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obviously not. It's a basic violation of every fairness rule.

But damn, it makes American electoral geography so interesting...

Imagine this forum without EC. No more "discuss with maps".

True. And probably I wouldn't even have registered here since I wouldn't have become the American politics junkie I am.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What do you mean the problem is the winner take all system in the EC? How would you reform it?

The Maine-Nebraska system is preferable.

No, district voting would create an even greater flaw. Add to that Republican gerrymandering... Proportional representation is the only (partially) democratic option.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What do you mean the problem is the winner take all system in the EC? How would you reform it?

The Maine-Nebraska system is preferable.

No, district voting would create an even greater flaw. Add to that Republican gerrymandering... Proportional representation is the only (partially) democratic option.

I wasn't aware that Republican gerrymandering was the only type of gerrymandering.

Ooops...
Well, maybe I wrote too precipitously what I thougt in my heart of hearts. Obviously there, the adjective "republian" is quite useless.
Still, all the gerrymanderings I've heard of for the moment were in favor of republicans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1. We are not a popular democracy, we are a democratic republic. And I would wish it on none of us to have it any other way. In the great spirit of American checks and balances, we need another layer of protection against the passion of the masses. While I may like Rousseau's idea of the "General Will" being infallible, he admits it can be led astray. When you vote you are not voting for the President, you are voting for someone to represent the leader you will.

Most pointless argument ever. The Electoral College is neither a check nor a  balance against tyranny of the mass, it simply distorts its will without weakening it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As opposed to election by national popular-vote.

None of the conventional arguments strike me as persuasive. But conventional or unconventional, line 'em up.

Sarah Palin.

If the electoral college worked the way it was intended it would never allow her to be president regardless of the popular vote.

What exactly leads you to think that ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sarah Palin.

If the electoral college worked the way it was intended it would never allow her to be president regardless of the popular vote.

What exactly leads you to think that ?

In America we don't vote for the president directly.  We actually vote for a contingent of candidates that are pledged to support one presidential hopeful when the Electoral College meets in DC and casts the actual vote for president.  They are not required by law to vote for the person they pledged to support.  And indeed there are numerous examples in history of people breaking this pledge.  If the people choose someone crazy (ie Palin) then presumably the more level headed representatives in the Electoral College will vote for a more appropriate candidate.

That's just ridiculous. EVs will vote for the candidate they were elected for, as has always happened since 1824.

[Antonio the Sixth]

EVs will vote for the candidate they were elected for, as has always happened since 1824.

There have been 13 elections since 1824 that have had faithless electors. (15 if you count 1872 and 1912 where the cause of faithlessness was their candidate died.) One of those cases, 1836, was sufficient to force the election of the Vice President into the Senate, where the end result was the same as if they had remained faithful.

So, never in the country's history faithless electors have changed the outcome of a Presidential election. And that's not going to happen anytime soon unless some major upset.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And that's not going to happen anytime soon unless some major upset.

So it won't happen unless it happens? I agree.

I've learnt to never say never, but the probability is around 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The electoral college keeps in check the voting power of each individual state.  While bigger states are still more powerful, it's not as disproportionate as it would be with direct popular vote.  For example, if Candidate X carries California, and Candidate Y carries Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin, then at this point, both candidates would be tied at 55 electoral votes.  Under direct popular vote, however, Candidate X would be so much further ahead because California has so many more people than even the second-most populous state (Texas), let alone those four states combined.  What I'm trying to say is that the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College for a reason, and I don't think it's anyone's job to say that it doesn't work.

Also keep in mind that with only four exceptions in our nation's history thus far, the winner of the popular vote and the electoral college have been the same.  And ironically, if it weren't for 2000, most of the people on this uber-liberal forum wouldn't be advocating for repealing the electoral college.

You keep using that word...