It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The reason for the electoral college was because the founding fathers feared that democracy would turn to a form of tyranny, not by actually electing a tyrant, but by mob rule. A faction consisting of more than half the voting population could control the nation.
Federalist Paper 68 discusses the election of the executive office.
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
However I do believe that the system needs to be modified to reflect the will of the people in a way to show more in line with how the people voted. Take this for example: Trump won Arizona, by 49.5% of the vote and Clinton got 45.4% of the vote. That means that if it was more reflective of such, Trump should get only 5 of the elector votes, Clinton get 4 of the elector votes. And it would allow for the third party candidates to have a real shot at winning the highest office of the land.
And it would mean that now every vote would have to count, with more emphises on people going out and voting.
originally posted by: omniEther
a reply to: Malocchio
It's simple the reason is because we are called the "United States" and not the "United people" a candidate has to win 50 separate elections which are based on popular vote for each state.
...a candidate has to win 50 separate elections...
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations: