Stupid is, as stupid does.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

That's incorrect.  Florida gets 29 votes and Wyoming gets 3.  That's not equal.
It was put in place to narrow down a very wide field of candidates to 3 people.
Then the House votes, with each state getting one vote.
So yes, as designed, the states are each supposed to get one vote.
But it doesn't work as designed, and probably never could.
We should try to make it better.

That is perfectly fair because Florida's population is massive compared to Wyoming.

What it stops is an enormous single county from deciding the votes for a whole state

Didn't Maine's 3 votes get split like 2 - 1 or something last election?

"What it stops is an enormous single county from deciding the votes for a whole state."

Does it? How?
Within each state, the presidential election is simply an overall popular vote.  You look at states that have a single really large county, like Washington State, that county (King county in this case) generally picks the winner in their Presidential election.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

5 times ever has a POTUS won the electoral college and not the "popular" vote.

Absolutely no reason to get rid of the electoral college. Oh except... Donald Trump won, so that means everything must be rigged, stolen, and rules must be changed.

(I'd be more inclined to get rid of the electoral college if we could somehow eliminate the two party system currently dominating DC)

---

5 times ever has a POTUS won the electoral college and not the "popular" vote.

Absolutely no reason to get rid of the electoral college. Oh except... Donald Trump won, so that means everything must be rigged, stolen, and rules must be changed.

(I'd be more inclined to get rid of the electoral college if we could somehow eliminate the two party system currently dominating DC)

Brazil and France and Mexico regularly see new parties get created and win the Presidency.  It's because they don't have an electoral college.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

5 times ever has a POTUS won the electoral college and not the "popular" vote.

Absolutely no reason to get rid of the electoral college. Oh except... Donald Trump won, so that means everything must be rigged, stolen, and rules must be changed.

(I'd be more inclined to get rid of the electoral college if we could somehow eliminate the two party system currently dominating DC)

Brazil and France and Mexico regularly see new parties get created and win the Presidency.  It's because they don't have an electoral college.

What? No. A third party is going to have the deck stacked against it because there's almost 250 years of legislation and manufactured "our way or their way, no compromise" thought in place to make it impossible for third parties to get a nose in. A major party has to implode, like what happened to the Whigs, for a new party to rise. Given the current state of affairs, with both parties shifting farther and farther from the center, I think we're going to see the rise of a third party at the expense of one of the two majors. That might be the new socialist wing of the Democratic Party deciding that Bernie Sanders isn't liberal enough and running off to create a party of Tide-sucking commies. Might be centrist Democrats and Republicans acknowledging that they have more in common with each other than they do the extreme elements of their own parties (this is the one I'm hoping for). Might be the Republican Party splitting in half if Trump is impeached and ends up losing Republican Congressional support and resigning or being removed. However it happens, the nation is primed for a third party in a way that it really hasn't been before, and that would be the case regardless of an electoral college.

I am curious, though. What makes you think that taking away the electoral college would suddenly make third party presidents viable? Because when I look at removal of the electoral college, I look at it as a Constitutional guarantee that we will never have a Republican President again, and that's a bad thing.

---

Brazil and France and Mexico regularly see new parties get created and win the Presidency.  It's because they don't have an electoral college.

What? No. A third party is going to have the deck stacked against it because there's almost 250 years of legislation and manufactured "our way or their way, no compromise" thought in place to make it impossible for third parties to get a nose in. A major party has to implode, like what happened to the Whigs, for a new party to rise. Given the current state of affairs, with both parties shifting farther and farther from the center, I think we're going to see the rise of a third party at the expense of one of the two majors. That might be the new socialist wing of the Democratic Party deciding that Bernie Sanders isn't liberal enough and running off to create a party of Tide-sucking commies. Might be centrist Democrats and Republicans acknowledging that they have more in common with each other than they do the extreme elements of their own parties (this is the one I'm hoping for). Might be the Republican Party splitting in half if Trump is impeached and ends up losing Republican Congressional support and resigning or being removed. However it happens, the nation is primed for a third party in a way that it really hasn't been before, and that would be the case regardless of an electoral college.

I am curious, though. What makes you think that taking away the electoral college would suddenly make third party presidents viable? Because when I look at removal of the electoral college, I look at it as a Constitutional guarantee that we will never have a Republican President again, and that's a bad thing.

A national popular vote would (should?) mean that the ballot would be the same across the nation.  This is covered in section 5 of the proposed amendment. There would be exactly one hoop for a new minor party to jump through and challenge for the Presidency.  Today there are 50 hoops. Section 5 would also allow, but not require, Congress to set up ranked choice voting or a runoff election or other scheme.
Once it becomes easy to set up a new party like this, candidates will see they don't need a major party to win, and they'll save money by bypassing the primary process.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

the ballot harvester needs ro be eliminated

---

“You may never know what results come of your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no results.”
“If you find a way to motivate an idiot you have a motivated idiot”

the ballot harvester needs ro be eliminated

Right now ballot harvesting is only legal in California.
Ballot harvesting has the potential to greatly increase turnout.
so that's one of the rules that would have to be the same all across the country in order for a nationwide vote to be fair.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's clear the electoral college is not working as intended. That said, moving to a direct democracy is a terrible idea. Unfortunately, we don't have the type of leaders and thinkers is requires to make changes that would improve our government. Also, ballot harvesting is a ridiculous concept and you should punch yourself in the face for suggesting otherwise.

---

It's clear the electoral college is not working as intended. That said, moving to a direct democracy is a terrible idea. Unfortunately, we don't have the type of leaders and thinkers is requires to make changes that would improve our government. Also, ballot harvesting is a ridiculous concept and you should punch yourself in the face for suggesting otherwise.

1) agree EC is not working as intended

2) national popular vote is not the same thing as "direct democracy," but even so, why is it a terrible idea? First instance of begging the question.

3) in your opinion, what changes would improve our government?

4) why is ballot harvesting ridiculous? Second example of begging the question.

5) you are aware that both parties in CA are allowed to go out and harvest the ballots, right?  

6) I only say all this, nitpicky and rude as it is, because you told me to punch myself in the face. maybe you should punch yourself for making an appeal to "better leaders and thinkers" while begging the question twice.  Or maybe both of us could be nicer to each other and no one needs to punch themselves at all.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's clear the electoral college is not working as intended. 

Why?
only 5 times ever has the electoral college voted for a POTUS that did not also win the "popular" vote.

It isn't working as intended now all of a sudden because it benefited a Donald Trump presidency (and of course, W before)

---

The electoral college protects the people of North Dakota from being controlled by the people of Los Angeles lol

---

It's clear the electoral college is not working as intended. 

Why?
only 5 times ever has the electoral college voted for a POTUS that did not also win the "popular" vote.

It isn't working as intended now all of a sudden because it benefited a Donald Trump presidency (and of course, W before)

---

The electoral college protects the people of North Dakota from being controlled by the people of Los Angeles lol

The electoral college does not protect North Dakota or any other small state.  The electoral college privileges the swing states. The bigger swing states get the most attention. The smaller ones get some too.  The not-swing states, large and small, get nothing once the primary phase is over.  

The electoral college also thwarts third parties.  The popular vote results that we have are meaningless because the selection of candidates was already narrowed down based on ability to win the college.

As for the intent, that's described in Federalist 68. Read that and get back to us.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If I was being tedious, I could make the case for direct democracy being a synonym for direct elections, since it was used often by the founding fathers with regards to this subject. However, by strict interpretation of the word, I will concede it was the wrong choice. The point still stands.

That said, I think you need to go back to logic school, dude. I intentionally stated a conclusion without supporting premises, which is completely different than begging the question. If you want to know the premises that support it, ask... not that it would matter. I haven't decided if you are naive or manipulative, but I don't think you argue in good faith, so I'd rather not waste my time laying out details.

You are the one arguing the superiority of a national popular election to that of an electoral college. So how about addressing the issue: A direct election would fundamentally change the face of American politics and virtually alienate the "flyover" states in choosing a President. Flawed as it may be, the whole point of the electoral college was to avoid mob rule. Read Madison. Read Jefferson. Read Hamilton.

It would take me an hour to lay out how the ways in which I would "fix" things, so I'm probably not going to do it. Basically, I'd like to put population restrictions on town/city/state size, and invert the government structure to limit federal power (how it was supposed to be). Then I'd let each local body choose a representative to elect the representative for the next highest office... all the way to the Presidency.

In summary, punch yourself in the face for supporting ballot harvesting.

---

Preserve "the sense of the people" while staving off the "tyranny of the majority." This is the reason for Electoral College. Just watching all this political infighting makes me more appreciative of it every day. Without it, you can bet we'd have factions or corrupt groups directly buying and/or intimidating to get who they wanted into political office. Some could argue that it almost takes place now but this would be quite different. Look towards places like Turkey, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. to see how it plays out.

---

Preserve "the sense of the people" while staving off the "tyranny of the majority." This is the reason for Electoral College. Just watching all this political infighting makes me more appreciative of it every day. Without it, you can bet we'd have factions or corrupt groups directly buying and/or intimidating to get who they wanted into political office. Some could argue that it almost takes place now but this would be quite different. Look towards places like Turkey, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. to see how it plays out.

North Korea? Really? Dude, you're reaching hard. NK hasn't been a democracy, direct or otherwise, since before Kim Jong Un's grandfather was around.

---

If I was being tedious, I could make the case for direct democracy being a synonym for direct elections, since it was used often by the founding fathers with regards to this subject. However, by strict interpretation of the word, I will concede it was the wrong choice. The point still stands.

That said, I think you need to go back to logic school, dude. I intentionally stated a conclusion without supporting premises, which is completely different than begging the question. If you want to know the premises that support it, ask... not that it would matter. I haven't decided if you are naive or manipulative, but I don't think you argue in good faith, so I'd rather not waste my time laying out details.

You are the one arguing the superiority of a national popular election to that of an electoral college. So how about addressing the issue: A direct election would fundamentally change the face of American politics and virtually alienate the "flyover" states in choosing a President. Flawed as it may be, the whole point of the electoral college was to avoid mob rule. Read Madison. Read Jefferson. Read Hamilton.

It would take me an hour to lay out how the ways in which I would "fix" things, so I'm probably not going to do it. Basically, I'd like to put population restrictions on town/city/state size, and invert the government structure to limit federal power (how it was supposed to be). Then I'd let each local body choose a representative to elect the representative for the next highest office... all the way to the Presidency.

In summary, punch yourself in the face for supporting ballot harvesting.

I did ask for your premises.  I used the word "why?" both times.
I appreciate you conceding the point about the words "direct democracy".  And I appreciate that you concede to stating a conclusion without supporting details - for me that's the same thing as begging the question, but I think we both agree that this is not good behavior.  So I'll let you win regarding the definition of "begging the question" since you let me win regarding "direct democracy".

You reiterate your desire for violence against me and then accuse me of arguing in bad faith?

I agree that a direct election would change the face of American politics.  It would make it much easier to create a new party.  I don't agree that it would "alienate the flyover states".  most of these states are already alienated.  For every Iowa or West Virginia that swings and attracts attention, there are two small not-swing states that get no attention at all.  With a national popular vote, different strategies would emerge.  Yes, one candidate would focus more on the largest media markets.  But the other candidate would take a different strategy.  He'd focus on the smaller markets.  This is not that different from the strategies we see today, with one candidate typically focusing on the big cities of a swing state and the other typically focusing on the suburbs and rural parts of that same state.  It's just taking place in every state.  The US is very spread-out, population wise.  Yes, the top ten media markets are big, but added all together, they are only about 30% of the voters.  Each candidate would need to win votes everywhere humanly possible.

Hamilton argued that the Electoral college would avert mob rule because a voter in one area would be selecting from a different set of candidates for elector than a voter in another area. He did not think that an ordinary voter would see the name of the Presidential candidate on his ballot. He thought that only the electoral college would ever see those names. So Hamilton thought it would be pointless for a Presidential candidate to behave like a demagogue and promote himself to the masses. Hamilton was wrong. The states quickly decided to give ballots to the people with the names of the Presidential candidate on them. Almost all of Hamilton's arguments for the EC fall apart on this one point. Every Presidential candidate since Jackson has behaved like a demagogue and created the type of mob rule that Hamilton feared. Luckily, the Senate and the Courts have stopped such men from becoming dictators, but the Electoral college has been less than useless in this regard.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I agree that a direct election would change the face of American politics.

Yes, it would. The strategy would be to register Democrat before running for national office, because every major city in the United States except Fort Worth and San Diego has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

---

I agree that a direct election would change the face of American politics.

Yes, it would. The strategy would be to register Democrat before running for national office, because every major city in the United States except Fort Worth and San Diego has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

I think you're just looking at City boundaries which are less than meaningless in a National popular vote.
Any advertisement made to the people of Dallas or fort Worth will be seen by the entire North Texas Media market which  is Republican on the whole.
And like I said even the top 10 media markets with all the suburban and rural Republicans that live in them only amount to 30% of the US population.
The United States is not like France. Paris accounts for nearly 20% of the French population all by itself. We don't have a city like that. 
To win a National popular vote you will have to campaign all over the country in all types of areas.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Preserve "the sense of the people" while staving off the "tyranny of the majority." This is the reason for Electoral College. Just watching all this political infighting makes me more appreciative of it every day. Without it, you can bet we'd have factions or corrupt groups directly buying and/or intimidating to get who they wanted into political office. Some could argue that it almost takes place now but this would be quite different. Look towards places like Turkey, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. to see how it plays out.

North Korea? Really? Dude, you're reaching hard. NK hasn't been a democracy, direct or otherwise, since before Kim Jong Un's grandfather was around.

Comprehension dude. Those are examples of distressed governments that have Presidents elected by popular, albeit intimidated vote. There was no direct country comparison of governments inferred. It's about election "fraud."

But to your point. Yes, North Korea or the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) actually holds elections. Get rid of the Electoral College and watch how are system morphs with intimidation and elections just become a formality.

---

North Korea? Really? Dude, you're reaching hard. NK hasn't been a democracy, direct or otherwise, since before Kim Jong Un's grandfather was around.

Comprehension dude. Those are examples of distressed governments that have Presidents elected by popular, albeit intimidated vote. There was no direct country comparison of governments inferred. It's about election "fraud."

But to your point. Yes, North Korea or the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) actually holds elections. Get rid of the Electoral College and watch how are system morphs with intimidation and elections just become a formality.

That's actually not a bad point, if you look at countries that have presidents and elect them by popular vote. Almost all of them have had coups in the last 100 years - look at Brazil and Nicaragua, they have had several.  Now, most of the military dictators were benevolent and stepped down after a free and fair election with no further intimidation.  But you never know what you're going to get with a military dictator.  Any of them could be the next Mao or Kim Il Sung.

Then again, we are one of the only countries that makes our military swear an oath to the Constitution.  Most others make them swear an oath to the nation or the people.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.