This could be a case of pushing things too far in the opposite direction. I'd like to reform the system as much as anyone, but thisdoesn't seem very well articulated.

On another note, how about term limits for Senators? Anyone?

...Bueller?

In actuality, the electoral college system was designed for a country with horse-based communications, which didn't even have an effective mail system when the country was founded.

It was, for it's time, a rather efficient way of expressing the will of the masses. Since then it's just suited enough people's purposes that it COULDN'T be changed even though it's pretty surely needed to be changed for quite some time.

Well ... in an election for the head of the executive, I must say, popular vote doesn't sound like that bad an idea. Especially since that seems to be what people expect.

Of course, the U.S. government really never was designed to do what people expected ... or even particularly wanted.

You'll never see a national implementation of term limits. Particularly on the Senate. Any state that would limit terms on its Senators would be robbing them of the power (and thereby the impact on local projects that that power provides). Any state that DIDN'T draft such self-defeating legislation would eventually gain all the power positions by default.

Term limits has arguably worked out well enough in the House, but that's mostly because the Representatives could move up to positions as Governors or Senators. There's really nowhere upward from Senator you can go, unless it's President or Veep. And Veep is effectively a downgrade, unless you're Al Gore or Dick Cheney or your President keeps people happy enough for your party to win a third consecutive term through you.

Is that even legal these days?

Reagan had two terms, 1981-1989. Bush I then succeeded him in 1989 - 1993. Reagan kept people fairly happy, and while Bush I was an underwhelming candidate (who publically admitted that he had "had sex" with Reagan), he had some people very skilled in dirty politics running his campaign, and an opponent that almost made him look like he had a pulse. Hence he won a "third term" for his party. It was the party I was referring to, not the predecessor President.

As long as I've known about it, I've always thought the concept of the Electoral College is outdated and kind of wrong in this age. It's too easy to corrupt. True, we'd introduce new problems by abolishing it, but it should still make things better in the end.

It is my understanding that the drafters of the constitution DID NOT want the president to be elected by popular vote. Congress is the voice of the people, not the Presidency.

Consider that the 4 or 5 states with the biggest urban populations control the majority of the popular vote. That's less than 10 % of the states and probaby only 20% of the geographical area of the US. Rural intersts, Agriculture and any industry involving our natural resources is not represented by the popular vote.

I think the electorial college was designed to give the states a say in the federal government. Helping to maintain a balance of power.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the popular vote that should be eliminated. If the president didn't have a "mandate from the people", he wouldn't be as powerful as he is. I think the balance of power has shifted too greatly to the executive branch. Let's return to indirect elections.

Then again, I know jack about government.

Why try to fix something that sort of works? No matter how convoluted it is it gives a scaleable ranking to a given population no matter how large it is. It has an "economy of scale?" Look at the US economy and how stable it is when a 2 party democracy which is basically the difference between pepsi and coke has an operational efficiency that is bar none better than anything in existence? Basically each party attempts to produce the greatest amount of colleagues in each party and votes are easy to produce given enough capital from believers.

If people think we spend "too much" money on presidential campaigns now (I'm not among them), they'll positively lose their shit if this happens.

That's not really true. Four of the "swing states" are in the top ten most populous states. And they are, I suppose, the most important swing states because of their population size. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan are big states with big cities that just happen to also have big rural areas that balance them out, thus making them swing.

And in Ohio, you better believe we swing.

Not if the Ohio Restoration Project takes hold.

Did you actually say anything here? I read it a couple times, and I'm not getting it. I interpreted it as "It kind of works, and therefore it's the best one out there (?), and both parties want their candidates to win.

Okay

Source!