I don't know if I have ever seen this explained so easily or convincingly. The part about winning the Presidency with only 22% of the popular vote (which he shows how this could easily be done) was frightening. It's in two parts, but both are relatively short and sweet: Part 1: [video=youtube_share;OUS9mM8Xbbw]http://youtu.be/OUS9mM8Xbbw[/video] Part 2: [video=youtube_share;7wC42HgLA4k]http://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k[/video] Is the Electoral College an outdated system which warrants replacement, and if so, by what alternative method?
Political parties ruined the intent of the Founders. It is a nice idea and I wish it to be preserved only because it creates for interesting drama on election night. It is no more undemocratic than the Senate I imagine. Still, it would be quite the political battle for this to ever get overturned.
I agree to a point. The Electoral College was put in place at a time where the literacy rate was low. That's changed. We also used to not have direct elections for Senators, and we amended the Constitution to allow it. I have never really sat down and studied the effects of a change like this, and I am not endorsing one now. I am merely pointing out that there are similar situations that can be pointed to as a precedent for a change.
It would make it considerably trickier to campaign and allot resources, and the voting incentives would change for someone in, say, Alabama or Vermont. Off the top of my head I think four elections would have been different with no electoral college.
One of the weaknesses of the electoral college is that it gives a disproportional vote to the smaller states, as each state is given a minimum of three electoral votes. I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but it's something along the lines of a state like Alaska having one electoral vote per 175,000 and New York with one per 600,000. Not exactly, but the sentiment is still the same.