'this is not a country where majority rules'

ahhh democracy......who can define it?

We don't use it in the state and local elections because the entire state is represented fairly with a mix of rural and metropolitan areas within the state; on the federal level, each state on its own may not be fairly represented, say a state like North Dakota versus a New York or California...the two states would always out vote the popular vote of those in North Dakota...but within North Dakota, during a gubernatorial race, its own population is voting for its own governance without having to out vote another state.

@thinktwice I stand corrected on the state/local elections. I've heard the defense of the electoral college, as you presented it, but I believe a democracy should represent the unfiltered population not the population, as represented by geographically skewed interests. The electoral college effectively handicaps the will of the people.

@chalupacabre So you think that farmers in the midwest are represented through a popular vote when just the city of New York could out vote them? How is that fair to them? What if the majority decides that all farms should be eliminated? Majority rule is not the fairest or safest way to run anything.It is also subject to more fraud as individuals are more easily persuaded to vote in one direction.

@thinktwice It sounds like you're saying states wouldn't any form of independence or autonomy if the electoral college were superseded by the popular vote. That certainly wasn't what I was suggesting. As far as fraud goes, could it not be argued that the Secretary of State commits fraud when engaging in gerrymandering? Drawing district lines to achieve a particular outcome is fair? What, it's justified if the right side benefits? I would argue it isn't. Is it not deceitful to tell voters how much their voice matters, when the process they're encouraged to participate in offers up clear and convincing evidence to the contrary?

@chalupacabre I truly do agree that unless we fix the issues of gerrymandering and attempts to redistrict unfairly as well as prosecuting electorates for not voting per their duty to those whom they serve, that the electoral system will be problematic. We can look at all of the information from other countries that have these same issues (Canada, India)...to gain more insight.

As long as states are part of the federal system, not fairly representing people in states with lower populations means they would not get their share of federal subsidiaries, funds for infrastructure, etc.

The electoral college was set up to account for representation for all our states...states being totally autonomous would be like succession, which we know from our history, failed...it would be detrimental to some states like Mississippi but great for states like California. It is still skewed to the more populous states, with those getting more electorates, but that seems fair.

I just think we are opening up a new can of worms with a popular vote and that the emotions are high on this one because of the last election...but imagine if the situation was reversed in the future...in our country we would probably always have a progressive or democrat and a little less than half of the people would get no representation at all.

@thinktwice The midwestern farmer's vote should be worth the same as any other citizen's vote--who cares about their occupation & where they live? I don't think my vote should be worth less than anyone else's, but the electoral college makes it so.