Will do. My teacher is the former president of the union, so I'm always a little skeptical.

I suggest that you seek some education and information on your own outside your class.

I could be wrong, but in my AP Government class, we discussed this a few weeks ago, and the Electoral College can completely ignore the popular vote--it means nothing. You don't vote for the president. Only the electoral college members vote for the president. You just vote for who will be in the College based on who they say they'll vote for, but technically, they're free agents. The popular vote means nothing. For example, in the 1976 election, one of the Electors who was supposed to vote for Ford voted for Reagan instead.
The original purpose of the Electoral College was to keep the President as far away from the public as possible. You would elect state legislators, who would elect Electoral College members, who would elect the president. This way, the president would not have to worry about public opinion; he would do what he thought was right.
I could be wrong about this; several people here claim there are penalties for voting against the popular vote, but that's not what I understand. In the primaries, yes, the delegates to the National Conventions for the parties are required to vote for whomever they pledged to for the first vote (if it's tied and they go into a second vote, then they can change their minds). But I'm pretty sure the Electoral College is fair game. I could be wrong.

The practical problem of changing a feature of any political system (such as eliminating the Electoral College) is that those who could most easily change it are disinclined to do so because they got into power as a consequence of the system. They don't want do change a system that they benefited from.

I am just living in my dream world, don't worry. :)

The Electoral College was implemented as a compromise between Congress choosing the President and the popular vote deciding who is President. The Founders did not want either of those two alternatives.

Presidents attempt to bribe you and me for our votes now. The Electors represent their respective states and its population. Not the Federal government.

"Votes are coming in..." The Electors cast their votes after the election is done.
"How do you decide...?" Electors don't decide. They pledge who they will vote for based on the popular vote results of their state. And there are consequences if they break their pledge.

Please read up a little on how the Electoral College actually works.

Either system is too easily corruptable. What's to keep the president from bribing electoral votes?

Popular vote becomes corrupted, because it can be treated as a popularity contest.

Electoral college is probably the best alternative. I just don't want someone else making decisions for me.

Except the Electors pledge who they will vote for and the popular vote decides which Electors get to vote.

This answered my question. Being a "faithless elector" is breaking your word and many states have laws punishing the action.

Popular votes argument against is that people aren't responsible enough to make informed decisions. Who has the right to tell you your vote was informed or not?

I used the word "required" purposefully. Are they required to vote how the popular vote in their state goes or is it merely a suggestion?

My thinking, if you were the representative:

Votes are coming in they show fifty fifty for each candidate. How do you decide which side to go for?

People that will cause the most influence are the voters you are in greatest contact with. Friends, family, campaign contributors, and obnoxious activist assholes. Say you then side with the activist assholes and only 5% of the whole state agrees with what they say but they create more contact with you than any of the other influences. As soon as you side with them their individual vote of one just became 2.

Again Catie, history show that your hypothetical is baseless. Google "Faithless Electors."

There have been a few, but it has never changed the outcome of an election.

States are supposed to doesn't mean they always do.

Thanks for the link, OA. I'll have to find time to get through that. This is quite an interesting subject to me.

But your hypothetical does not happen, Catie. If I recall correctly, there are only one or two instances in the past of Electors switching their vote from what the popular vote was. They are not bound to vote that way but they are charged with that responsibility. (If I'm not completely correct in my remembering, I sure someone here will gently correct me.)

I'm not sure how you think that "it dilutes the vote."

Historically the EC has generally served us well. Fears of what calamities could happen are possible but not probable.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/I...
O.A.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't the Electoral College for a state required to vote how the popular vote in their state goes?

And that's the real point of contention. While there isn't a tyranny of the majority on the federal level, each state is a tyranny of the majority.

I don't like that our vote can get hijacked. I have move faith in legislation than our president though.

It dilutes the vote.

Hypothetically everyone in our state could vote democrat, but the electoral college vote would go to republican. Being high industry the people that provide the money and hold back door meetings will be of more influence than everyone making an informed vote.

I don't like the state making the decision that it thinks is "best", and it is the people that make that decision that make me leery of electoral college.

I was mainly being glib but, the BCS is a computerized ranking system that purports to find the best teams in the nation by a context-less formula, most notably in the "strength of schedule" variable which is not measured objectively. Likewise, NPV is spearheaded by a computer engineer who purports to be finding the best candidate for president by dropping context, most notably by focusing on pure number of population.

I also found this quote amusing:
"Although it’s not part of the current NPV plan, we could eventually be driven to adopt a run-off election, allowing the top two candidates to face each other in a second round. Imagine the expense, the length of the campaigns, and the legal controversies of such an approach."

People often cry that the BCS isn't broken, it just needs a playoff element. Humorously, one will be put into action soon, and in relevance to elections, there already is a run-off. That's what the electoral college is.

Nail meet hammer!
O.A.

Not being a college sports fan could you provide a succinct explanation for me, jml?