I read an interesting article today. Here's a link:

Party Takes 77% of Popular Vote… and Loses Election! Truth Is a Woman

This is the problem I have with the electoral college -- a voter in Wyoming has more than four times the voting power of a voter in Texas. Why should anyone's vote be worth more than another person's vote? And to such a huge degree as that, well, I find that seriously anti-democratic. All men are created equal, and all that jazz.

Read that article and see what is possible with the electoral college. It's possible for, say, McCain to win more than 3 out of every 4 votes...and lose the election. A mere 23% of the population could assume control of the country, if that 23% is all congested into the states with the highest 'vote quality' (e.g. votes needed per electoral vote). If you REALLY want your vote to count, or at least count more than people elsewhere, move to Wyoming.

I doubt anything will be done about the electoral college until someone loses the popular vote by 10+ points...and wins the presidency anyway, even though 60+ percent of the population voted against that person. That'd probably spark enough outrage to get things changed.

Man, the electoral college pisses me off!

The Electoral System doesn't piss me off, the Winner Take All System that many states has pisses me off. The idea behind the electoral system was to balance the power of high population states against low population states so you didn't have a tyranny of states like NY, TX, and CA. That's since been destroyed by the Winner Take All System. If you vote in a district and it goes Republican, but the other two districts in your state go Democrat your electoral vote doesn't contribute to your candidate's total, but to the total of the other candidate, and thus your vote doesn't count.

I do however, oppose a straight popular vote on the grounds that it makes it a lot easier to commit vote fraud. No longer do you need to commit it in a lot of places simultaneously, but in only one place. No longer would it be necessary to hijack the elections in almost 5 - 6 states, but you would have to do it in just one or two high population states.

No, the best alternative would be to return the electoral college to how it was originally intended to function with each district getting one electoral vote, and each state having two at large electoral votes. This would do the most to prevent any one from being disenfranchised. No longer would largely rural states be able to deprive their urban areas of their electoral vote, and no longer would largely urban states be able to deprive their rural areas of their vote.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis