Election Nightmare Scenario

[Ruralguy]

My point, is that perhaps it's time to alter what the founders intended.  The founders also left us ways to change things. Why is it more fair that 100,000 rustbelters decide the Presidency than millions of Californians?

[dismalist]

My point, is that perhaps it's time to alter what the founders intended.  The founders also left us ways to change things. Why is it more fair that 100,000 rustbelters decide the Presidency than millions of Californians?

Correct: Let's have a constitutional amendment!

However, why would anyone wish to be ruled by Californians?

What Truman Capote said about California: "You lose one point off your IQ for every year you stay out there". :-)

[kaysixteen]

If we really wanted to run the electoral college the way the Founders intended, we would return to the notion of voters not actually voting for a presidential candidate, but rather for an elector or slate of electors, who would be (presumably) trusted upper-class type educated folks who would then use their superior intellectual gifts to choose a president.  This would of course all be taking place in the context of a country that did not have political parties, either.   Anyone want to do this?

BTW, exactly how is the US electoral college viewed in places like, well more or less any other democratic country, where you actually would have to get the most votes/ seats in Parliament, etc., in order to take power?

[dismalist]

If we really wanted to run the electoral college the way the Founders intended, we would return to the notion of voters not actually voting for a presidential candidate, but rather for an elector or slate of electors, who would be (presumably) trusted upper-class type educated folks who would then use their superior intellectual gifts to choose a president.  This would of course all be taking place in the context of a country that did not have political parties, either.   Anyone want to do this?

BTW, exactly how is the US electoral college viewed in places like, well more or less any other democratic country, where you actually would have to get the most votes/ seats in Parliament, etc., in order to take power?

Almost anything against a tyranny of the majority!

[financeguy]

People often argue against the electoral college based on "fairness" but it isn't remotely about what is fair to individuals but what is a necessity in order to get 50 states to exist in harmony with one another rather than threatening to succeed, getting involved in armed conflicts with one another, etc.

You could reduce the influence of many of the rust belt residents you seem to think have undue influence, but while you're at it might as well help them (and other states) fill out the paperwork for succession because most of the residents of those states have absolutely no interest in continuing to be part of the United States if led by California and New York.

Think of two widows who wish to marry later in life, a man with seven adult children and a woman with one. They might have a discussion about how they will draft their will and trust, planning to purchase several pieces of real estate and other investments jointly. Should the single child of the wife get 1/2 of the assets as the heir of 1/2 of the couple or 1/8th the assets, being one of eight total children? There's no right or wrong answer to this, but if the wife believes her adult daughter might get a raw deal relative to the large number of children her potential husband has, it wouldn't be uncommon to try to sweeten the pot for her in some way, perhaps keeping a property entirely to herself that would have passed this way even if it means that the total value of her assets would be closer to a third than an eighth. This may or may not be "fair" in the eyes of certain people, but it may be what it takes to get the marriage to actually happen.