The Electoral College; Building Block or Stumbling Block?

you are so philosophical

My thought is that it is too complicated for the average American. [seriously its a long way from counting the votes and the one with the most becomes President, to the complex and obscure procedure as in the link]

In my view, The Electoral College serves a number of necessary functions in a large and diverse nation's effort to equitably elect its chief executive. There are others, but key among these functions, to my mind, is that it assures that not only does the elected chief executive have sufficient popular support to be credible, but also that support must be spread across the entire nation, giving, in practice, each state a vote proportionate to its population in respect to the populations of each of the other states, preventing the domination of the more urbanized, densely populated states from consistently overwhelming the the views and wishes of the more rural, less populated states. A tyranny of the many is no less a tyranny than a tyranny of the few. A candidate succeeds not by amassing the greater number of popular votes, but by achieving sufficient support across the spectrum of all of the state's interests. I see The Electoral College as a critical component of the Federal system of government.

Outdated
It is no longer a practical method in this tech. advanced society.

Timber
Timber, you make good points except that the population profiles of rural states have changed so much that it no longer remedies an old need.

The increasing disappearance of family farmers to be replaced by giant agriculture corporations is only one example of why the Electoral College is no long justified. The balance has tipped in favor of a tyranny of the few.

BBB

BBB, I disagree in that I perceive the interests and concerns of The Urban US to be other than the interests and concerns of The Rural US, just as differ the interests and concerns of The Eastern Seaboard from The Gulf States or The Midwest, or The Left Coast. The Electoral College prevents any region from excersizing undue influence on any other region, regardless of population or lack thereoff.

To which I answer in part that among the other effects of The Electoral College is that it serves to promote the political stability of a two-party system. Coalitions are involved, but are formed within the two parties, as opposed to being assembled from among many parties sitting in government, a state of affairs which is not condusive to continuity of governance and cohesiveness of policy. The advancement of technology has no impact on the divisive contentiousness which is political nature. The current and traditional system keeps that pot from boiling over.

Timber
Timber, to consider whether or not the two party system is a good and bad thing would require another entire discussion, which could derail the topic of this thread, but is of primary importance.

BBB

The pros and cons of the two-party system are indeed another topic, but the two-party system is greatly abetted by the Electoral College system, while multi-party political structure is inhibited.

And what the hell ... its my thread, go ahead and derail it for a while if ya wanna. I can always split stuff off into another topic if it seems to become necessary, or you could even fire up a debate on the merits of the two-party system yourself.

The biggest problem with the electoral, college system IMO is the winner take all in most states. The college voting turns the nation into 50 separate nations and in close elections allows a minority [popular vote] to be elected president. In addition because of the manner in which the number of electoral votes are assigned peoples votes in the less populated states have a greater value than those in the heavily populated ones. IMO rather the tyranny of the large states we are faced with the tyranny of the small ones. I should point out that the small states by virtue of the senate having two senators from each state already have a decided advantage in government.

I would disagree with that perception of imbalance, au ... the states start off with two electors, to which are added a number proportionate to their population. I do have a little trouble with the "Winner take all" requirement in most states, but again, that is indeed condusive to a Federal Government in that perforce it creates a federation.

Au1929
I agree with Au1929 that the winner take all is the most anti- democratic provision of the voting process. As I understand it, the winner take all provision is an invention of the states and not part of the original E.C. Each state decides whether it wants winner take all or proportional one person, one vote voting.

BBB