Hillary has a strong argument

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

Things are going to get very interesting between now and May 31 or June 3.

The DNC meeting on 5/31 will surely spark many a conversation perhaps for years to come.

I expect that meeting to be quite heated. Neither candidates will be willing to give much.
On a slightly different note, I was surprised to see Edwards throw his support to Obama. He is a populist and his views are more aligned with Clinton. I wonder if BO threw him a bone?

[afmo]

and now add to her argument her 41 point landslide victory in WV, that went red state in the last 2 elections...thats a HUGE margin...

[mpak87]

Originally Posted by jmichna

mpak87,
For a long time I was very much against the Electoral College, and thought that pure popular vote should determine the presidency. But, the more I read about the arguments, pro and con, and the more I read about our Founder's fear and concern of "mob rule" (majority rule) and their reasoning to found a (democratic) republic rather than a pure democracy, the more the Electoral College makes sense.

Having an Electoral College helps mitigate regional differences and antagonisms. It also tends to grant more weight to the smaller states, whose impact on an election based purely on popular vote, would really be diminished. It helps ensure that the winner is popular over a widespread area of the country, and is not elected solely on support in the large population cities of the East and West Coast.

Without the Electoral College, it is likely a single, highly populated region (say the North East, or the West Coast) voting strongly in favor of one candidate could elect someone who is not desired by voters in a majority of the states. Same as a candidate (who is) popular only in large urban areas, but unpopular in small town and rural areas... the large city vote would overwhelm the others.

A given state's electoral votes may be cast as the state's college members see fit. There is no Federal level requirement that all the votes be cast for the popular vote winner in that state (though that is customary). I believe there are a couple states who do/can cast split ballots.

I can't really argue with that. I suppose it is the equivalent of granting states equal representation in the Senate. Maybe the issue here is of a higher scale. The main problem may well be with the fact that one person, chosen from a binary set of parties gets so much influence over so many different groups of people. With the original intention of the founders, maybe the system did make sense. Back then the federal gov didn't have a fraction of the power it does today, so who the president is really didn't matter quite as much back then. Also, I guess that electoral votes would make more sense in the absence of political parties. Maybe it's just going to suck no matter what we have. I guess you can't make everyone happy.

[Frenchy]

We have seen what representative proportionment has done to the primary process within the Democratic Party.
It is why we have an Electoral College in the general.