Arnold can't be President-Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5.

and the whole concept is a bad idea. The framers were far-sighted and foresaw the need for the whole country to be represented. Remember, they didn't create a democracy, they created a representative republic, specifically to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

bad idea: I agree with you on the Founders' intent but maybe they also left the mechanisms in place that would allow California & other states to legally follow through with this plan and perhaps in their wisom they understood that their system would be gamed by more unscrupulous men in the future.

I agree with the idea of a tyranny of a majority being a bad idea, but w/o a tyranny a majority is just democracy.

In the last election the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (maybe) were the only states in play. No candidate stopped by California except to use us as an ATM. And the idea of small states getting represented? They do in the senate, but candidates didn't spend much time in the midwest either.

The current system has no major fight for the largest state in four or more election cycles and none on the horizon. A system where there is no attention paid to the majority of citizens is not a vital functioning democracy.

The current system is an oligarchy of a few "swing" states.

I bet more people would embrace this idea if they realized it didn't favor either major party.

Like permitting the continuation of slavery in some states, the real reason for the electoral college (and also the bicameral legislature) was a compromise to get all the states - large and small, free and slave - to agree to ratify the constitution.

The electoral college was a bad idea then and it remains a bad ideas now.

So let me get this straight. This compact (assuming it was ratified in kind by several other states) would obligate California to give its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes nationwide. So under that scenario, even though John Kerry won California easily in 2004 California would have handed all its electoral votes to George W. Bush against the clear intent of the voters in this state.

Sounds like a shitty idea to me.

It sounds like a sure fire way to elect someone that residents of Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and other mega cities prefer.

Anyone for a Villaraigosa/Bloomberg ticket?

Uh - nevermind.

Are you arguing against a system that would look first at what a majority of voters would prefer?

Under the current system California has been ignored. So has the midwest. What system woould you propose to make voting for President critical for me? Currently, a small fraction of the states holds all the keys to power. I doubt the framers thought that swings states would hold all the power and large states would actually be the ones left out.

In other words, why is Ohio worth hundreds of presidential visits and California will always be ignored? If we stick with your system we could save so much time by allowing only Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida to vote.

I live around Los Angeles and I can't imagine voting for either of those two candidates for President. I bet you wouldn't either Roasted. Why not back something that would make California Republican voters choices matter? Because of right now your vote doesn't matter in a presidential race. Your civics teacher lied.

It should be stated that if we were to eliminate the electoral college and go with a straight majority vote for president then the opposite would occur. The vast majority of campaigning would occur in high population states like California and New York, while places like Montana and South Dakota would be completely ignored. The founding fathers clearly had a concern that high population states would dominate smaller states unless they found a system that could strike a balance between majority rule and minority representation. The civil war itself was fought primarily over the issue of states rights and the fair representation of the minority, so it is not something that should be taken lightly.

The real issue here in California is that a republican candidate for president has virtually no chance at winning so there is no point in wasting the effort and money. The same holds true in states like Texas except the other way around. It is the states that are evenly divided that get the most attention. It can be argued for instance that african americans hurt themselves by so overwhelmingly supporting the democratic party that their own party can take them for granted and republicans have no incentive to do anything for them. On the other hand, both parties cater to hispanics since they are more evenly split between liberals and conservatives. If California really wants to be heard it needs to stop being so politically polarized.

Bubba,

The founding fathers did not elect senators (who were appointed by the states), nor were women allowed the any rights in voting or most other civil rights, black people were legally considered property (although the slaves states were allowed to count them as partial persons to allow these states more members in the congress), etc., so just because they put something was in The Constitution once does not mean it should be there forever or even that it was a good idea.

There have been a lot of changes (amendments) to The Constitution since 1789, but one thing that has remained is the ability to amend the constitution as the people and states continue to make it meaningful for their times.

The electoral college system is an anarchromism that made sense in providing the needed compromise to get the small states to ratify The Constitution. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, it may have served an additional purpose in allowing quicker election of a president at a time when communications were slow and often innacurate. However, it is no longer necessary and may have contributed to "stolen" elections in 1960 (according to some Repulicans)
and 2000 and 2004 (according to some Democrats)
by enabling fraud in key precints in one or two states to swing the states electoral votes and the national elections.

No system would be perfect, but it is impossible to find any real benefit to the electoral college today and there is a huge downside to it.