Obama win drives interest in Electoral College vote

"We do have much more interest this year than we have noticed in the past". That's what people were saying in 2000, and 2004, when liberals were DEMANDING the end of the Electoral College and the institution of the plurality vote. "the largely symbolic ceremonies" Symbolic, my ass! These "ceremonies" (like the "ceremony" of the Senate conformation) are required by the Constitution. There's nothing "symbolic" about them. Quite trying to turn our Constitution into a relic of symbolism and ceremonies.

We are interested because the electoral college is the last line of defense in electing an unqualified candidate. We want to know if the College will demand a valid birth certificate since the DNC obviously did not.

Stop whining. The election is over. Evidently, your guy lost. The way you babies are crying is silly. After all, it's not as bad as the time then-U.S. Senator John Ashcroft lost to the dead guy.

I don't get it. Why do they even do this OR better question, why do they ever do the popular election. One or the other is logically unnecessary. The liberal illuminati won this time around in the popular vote. The electoral college issue isn't really going to matter.

What the U.S. Constitution says is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election. In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect. See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

The problem with electing a president in this day and age is not so much related to the Electoral College as is it with the Candidates to choose from. The people only have a real choice of two candidates both of which managed one way or another to secure the nomination. In many elections most people would rather neither be elected. And then there is the Vice President. We are effectively disenfranchised when it comes to electing the Vice President; we have no choice at all with who this Presidential running mate is. We need to change the way we choose nominees for and elect the president and the vice president. A popular won't do especially when it comes to selecting the nominees.

The mechanism of this political relic acts as a brake on democracy and, for that reason, has to to go. Because of the distortions of the electoral college, campaigns focus attention on whichever states have electoral votes up for grabs, effectively disenfranchising almost the rest of the country. This time, the voters in New York, California, Texas and Illinois, along with those in a large majority of the 50 states, were unable to affect the outcome of the election because polls indicated that unbeatable majorities in those states favored one candidate over another. In reaction, voters who preferred the minority candidates in those locales could be forgiven if they chose to stay home on election day. With the impediment of the electoral college removed, no one's vote will be irrelevant or diluted any longer. The ballot of the Republican in Massachusetts or California will have the same impact on the choice for president as the ballot of the Democrat in South Dakota or Texas. Everyone's vote will be equal. No one will be disenfranchised. http://www.ImpracticalProposals.com/