Good article, and a fair jumping off point for discussion (though I doubt you'll have many folks jumping in here to defend the Electoral College.) A few minor quibbles:

The founders never intended to create a Federalist Society, they intended to create a Federalist form of Government. Of course, the Federalist Society is a conservative/libertarian legal organization that many (such as myself) would argue is at the root of the current Originalist nonsense that has currently taken over much of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

It's also important to differentiate between the two concepts of Government and Society. The founders certainly were interested in establishing this concept of Federalism within the structures and mechanisms of government, but whether they intended that to have an effect on American Society is a different question.

That's true to an extent. The system was also set up to protect the Federal government from the States and (most importantly) protect both the States and The Federal government from the whims of the people. Remember, the one thing that the founders feared more than monarchy was direct democracy (and with good reason!). So they set up this system that allowed the individual electors to check the votes of the people if they so chose. Remember, there is no Constitutional or legal requirement that a member of the Electoral College actually cast his vote for the candidate he is pledged to cast it for. They could change their mind.

I'm curious as to why you don't believe that any of the other reform options are viable. As I'm sure you know, many more than just those two have been discussed. For example, the National Popular Vote method would award all electoral college votes in every state to the winner of the national presidential election. This is similar, though not identical, to your first option. Other options include awarding electoral votes by Congressional District or by proportion by states. Do you think that these other options are viable? Why or why not?

This is where they get it 100% wrong. The current system does NOT prevent urban-centric victories, nor does it have a primary effect of protecting small states over large states (that's one effect, but not the primary one.) No, what the current system does is ensure tyranny of the swing states over the "safe" states.

The past several elections have been wonderful examples of this. Because of the Electoral College, Barack Obama didn't spend any time in small largely rural states like Hawaii, Maine, Vermont or Oregon, because he didn't have to. His victory was assured there. Similarly, John McCain never visited Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, South Dakota, Mississippi, because he would win those states no matter what. Nor did either candidate spend much time in California, Texas, or New York because those states were relatively safe. Instead, both candidates spent endless hours in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia... states that are electorally up for grabs, whether they are urban or rural or neither. As a result, both candidates have the incentive to tailor their message to those specific states at the expense of BOTH large urban and small rural states.

THAT is where the Electoral College goes wrong in modern America. I live in the most populous state in the Union. Both candidates should be here pandering to me nonstop. Instead, Obama will swing by whenever he wants a check and I will bet you the contents of my checking account that Romney makes no more than a token effort to compete here. That's just flat dumb.

It is totally lost on you that America is a Democratic Republic isn't it? We are NOT a Democracy. Mob rule would be good for no one. Especially since the entitlement class only votes for those that offer free stuff. Our Founders had it right when they set up a Republic instead of a Democracy. Democracies ALWAYS fail (see the Middle East). Our great Republic is still going strong after all these years. If you hate America so much, why don't you leave?

Really, guy?

Direct election of a president would not change us from a Democratic Republic to a Democracy.

Oh. That's what this is about. The "Entitlement class." Does your definition of "entitlement class" include all of the old people on Medicare that vote Republican all the time? My guess is no.

I agree wholeheartedly. Of course, our founders also enacted a system that prevented direct election of Senators. We've changed that and still kept the (little r) republican nature of government. Why would providing for direct election of a president change that? Or do you have any idea what I'm talking about?

Mostly because I love illegal immigration, abortion, and taking yer guns so much. If I moved to Canadia I wouldn't know what to do with myself.

Indeed!

Well, he is building a house out there. Maybe he thinks he'll get some "home state" votes.

/sarcasm

Do you even have a point, or are you just going around being wrong for fun?

Need this exchange on a tee-shirt or some such, posthaste. See to it for me, will you Internets?

Ya, really.

This was a good a article. My ONLY problems with it are that it is both Partisan and incredibly sarcasm laden, making entirely impalpable by anyone that has any level of conservative ideals what-so-ever. That probably isn't a bad thing for one who enjoys writing only to garner the affections and attention of those who share similar ideals and philosophies but is definitely ineffective when (or if) actually attempting to bring a conservative 'fence rider'' over fully to a more (as you would likely put it) 'intelligent and reasonable' side of the fence. Since only the probability of the former exists, it makes it little more than a fluff piece for ones own personal ego.

The second problem I have with it is the all too expected and usual portrayal of small town conservatives as inbreed morons. To be more specific as, "racist, gun-totin’, meth-smokin’, homophobic cracker who fucks donkeys while screaming “Praise Jesus!” Now this portrayal, although slightly more colorful and humorously creative than the average 'hick' bashing is still a clear indication of two things. Either you are just a mean person who spews filth out of his mouth about people he (obviously) knows nothing about or you are as equally uneducated as the people who are degrading. Since I don't know you and have no intentions of making assertions to either case against you, I will leave that for you to consider.

Anyone with any level of education knows that most of the 'hicks' are Conservative because they lack an education, but because they are white that are not afforded the same social exceptions and excuses as an uneducated black gangster or Latino immigrant may. Which, I may add, is another example of the one sided nature of being TOO liberally minded versus finding a balance that rests somewhere more in the ''truth' zone.

Aside from these two facts, I agree with you that the electoral college needs to be changed. I agree with you that the two party system is a good system and is not representative of the diversity in this country. In fact it is a divisive system that perpetuates animosity, disrespect and a concrete inability to ever reach a better America.

I absolutely DISAGREE that the President should be decided by the popular vote. People, even mass numbers of people, do not always make good decisions. In a culture were young people are insanely infatuated with glistening vampires, drunk, obnoxious, irresponsible hood-rats from Jersey, Pregnant teenagers, and laughing at the person who can get hurt the most I don't think I want those people deciding my future via the politics.

By the way, George Bush won the elections in 2000 and it doesn't matter why. He's been out of office more than 4 years now. Obama has been the Man with Plan for that four years. Why are even discussing Al Gore. That man is so irrelevant now it almost seems a waste of breath to speak his name.. kind of like Dick Cheney. They are like demons, the more you speak their name the more power you give them... it's a street that runs both ways.

Disclaimer: This is on the internet and is delivered in the form of written words. This message is devoid of any and all levels of inflection, tone or emotion and should be taken as open opinion that bares no malice and or aggression towards the author or this article, Its just the opinion of a middle of the road guy who wants political unity enough to be willing to conceded that it isn't achieved by always taken and never giving.

Great rhetorical statement; and I agree. Thank you!

Third option - just trying to make people laugh by over-exaggerating an obvious stereotype.

Oh. Nice.

Before you start pontificating about all the wonderful privileges afforded to uneducated black gangsters and Latino immigrants, you might try reading Joe Bageant's eye-opening Deer Hunting With Jesus about life in hard-scrabble (mostly) white towns in the US, and why those populations have leaned so heavily conservative.

You might learn something.

I'm always eager to learn something new and will look into the book. I typically find, however, that when someone says I should 'learn' something, it's because I don't agree wholeheartedly with their viewpoints. I don't mind reading books that enlighten, but I despise reading books that further enforce negative stereotypes of any individuals. I will put it in the reading Que and see what turns out.

Again, my comments were to show the flaws of Mr. Whitley's argument from the perspective of a suburban American who comes from a largely conservative background. Unlike many, who are extremely liberal when they are young and become more conservative as they get older, I have found that I have begun to shift to more liberal ideals in my older age. That being said, I still respect the ideals of conservatives in many areas, while acknowledging and attempting to sway other conservatives, on the more social and everyday issues. Just because someone is white and suburban, doesn't mean they are ignorant, without a heart, or any of the other colorful euphemisms used in the initial blog.

I support gay rights, because it's the right thing to do. I support women's rights to make their own decisions about abortions, because it's their life and their body and it's the right thing to do. I support LEGAL immigration of individuals that are non-criminal, able bodied, self-sufficient, working capable individuals because America is one of the greatest countries in the world and everyone has the right to pursue freedom and financial independence. I support citizenship for immigrant children born in the us or brought here by their parents when they were young and who are productive members of society, because theirs no reason not to. I despise the continuing belief that this country was founded on 'Christian' values and religion when in fact it was founded on 'Natural Law' and ideals of basic human goodness... Christianity just followed in a fertile environment and has no place in the Government.

Not the typical suburban American Conservative.... But I will still keep my guns, oppose unionized labor (because unions are as crooked as politicians), oppose the Universal Healthcare (mostly because it was sold on a lie), and support our troops because they didn't ask to be there and they need to know that no everyone thinks they are murdered and marauders.

I would also like to add that Conservative are not the only ones that are crooked in politics.. The Democrats have pulled some pretty shady shite themselves. There's not clean hands in this game.

Just out of curiosity, why such a stake in the discussion of American Politics? Your profiles says your from Australia. Not that it means you shouldn't have an opinion, just curious as to what makes someone actually enter a debate about a country that doesn't really effect them.

Ms. Clidna, I'm all for a good laugh as much as the next person. I even admitted that the comment was a little more creative and humorous than the average bashing that I read. It was still uncalled for.

Lets look at this honestly and fairly in comparison.

About 10 years back Dodge ran a commercial for their Dodge Caliber (or some other vehicle) that involved a faerie attempting to bewitch the car with her magic wand. The continued to fail until ultimately the car won, tossing the faerie against a while and garner the jeers and taunts of a wild looking fellow with his dog, who calls the Faerie a... well Faerie. The faerie, in retaliation, blasts the overly humored spectator with her magic and turns the masculine man into the stereotypical 'gay' man; an obvious play on the classification of faerie. This commercial, however humorous and creative it was, was not found to be in good taste nor easily dismissed by the gay community and was removed from the air after avid protests and complaints.

If I were to make such a 'humorous' stereotype regarding a gay man, a lesbian woman, a Latino, a African-American, a Muslim or any other of the 'protected by liberal' groups of people, it would not be found to be funny and would be met with extreme prejudice and anger. I see it happen all the time.

I would very much like to express that I would NEVER make such an assertion. I have gay and lesbian family. I have a half Latino sister. I have had and would willing have again, African American friends and romantic interests. It's a point a making, not a suggestion to any personal belief I hold.