The Beauty of Democracy

The topic is interesting in that it points out how many people are lacking knowledge about Americas History and the importance of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a brilliant constitutional device that deserves the support of the American people.

Many Americans mistakenly believe that the United States was established as a democracy. The founding generation, however, intentionally omitted the word "democracy" from their governing documents. The Founders, by and large, were opposed to pure democracies, which allow bare majorities to tyrannize over minority groups. Instead, the founding generation intended to create a republic-or, arguably, a republican democracy-which would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: Avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government

Critics of the Electoral College often claim that the state-by-state presidential election is unfair and causes some votes to be "wasted." The culprit, they say, is the "winner-take-all" method employed by most states....

As this argument goes, a Texan who voted for Gore in the 2000 election wasted his vote, because Bush was awarded the state's entire slate of electors under the winner-take-all method.... Critics condemn this situation as intolerable. After all, in a direct popular election, Gore votes could have instead been included in the final national tally for Gore, and they would not have been wasted simply because they were cast in Texas....

These votes aren't wasted. They were simply cast on the losing side of a popular vote within the state. If the 2000 election had been conducted based on nationwide popular vote totals only, would people claim that any vote for George Bush was "wasted" because Al Gore won the popular vote? Of course not. The votes for Bush were cast in an effort to win. In the event of a loss, they would simply have been votes for the losing candidate-just like any other election.

They further dispute that the Electoral College is responsible for the two-party system. Of course, these proponents may acknowledge, America's system of checks and balances is the foundation upon which moderation and compromise has been built. However, they argue that changing the presidential election system, alone, would not undermine these protections or enable "rigid ideologies and inflammatory class appeals" to gain too much power....

Predictions of what would happen in a direct election system should assume that it is at least possible that changing the rules of the presidential election game will cause more than one aspect of the political process to change. Indeed, a relatively quick deterioration of the two-party system is quite likely under such a set of changed incentives. Runoffs would become not only possible, but probable. These runoffs cannot prevent the rise of factions; instead, they are likely to encourage them....

The Electoral College minimizes the impact of fraud, isolating it to the one or two states where the vote was close and disputed. Under a direct election, any stolen vote in any location could matter. When taken together with the increased possibility of close popular vote margins, the potential for national challenges and recounts would be greatly increased under a direct election system.

In closing I would remind your readers that many believe our Constitutional Framers were devinely inspired for which I would agree. After viewing your take on the Electoral College I'm greatful for their wisdom given your lack of it. Thank goodness it would take ¾ of the states to ratify / change the Elector College system which for sure the small states would never allow.