NavyNuclearTechnicia's Journal: Presidential election...fact or myth?

Given the light shed by the current political atmosphere, I was reminded of something I once questioned back in High school Government class.

Do we really elect the president?

I seem to recall something about an electoral college, whose members actually elect the president by placing their electoral votes for the president. Hence why a president can be elected without a majority vote.

Some states have laws that require the elecorate to vote the direction of their states majority, but how many states require this? What portion of the population has no direct affect on the election?

The problem

[Zirnike]

Can be quite significant. Part of the issue is that all but 2 or 3 states (I think) are winner take all, instead of the more logical percentage of the vote equals percentage of the electors.

Some states have laws saying that the electors must vote as the state requires them, but it's still a secret ballet. So the electors could decide to elect someone totally different.

In addition, remember that the number of electors is equivilent to Reps+senators... so low population states are unfairly represented

Re:The problem

[Quantum Jim]

In addition, remember that the number of electors is equivilent to Reps+senators... so low population states are unfairly represented (they get 3X the number of votes per person, and it tapers to an extra 4% for California (that's 2 out of 56, roughly))

That's actually the point. In a straight percentage-based election, the needs of the larger states would outweigh the less populus states. Those with sparce populations - i.e. farming states - would risk political irrevelency. To give them a say in th

Re:The problem

[Zirnike]

I know that's the point, but it's another way the process is set up so that the loser can win.

The best government would be a benevolent dictatorship. Assuming I was dictator.

Re:The problem

[Quantum Jim]

benevolent dictatorship... isn't that an oxymoron?

Re:The problem

[Zirnike]

Nope. A dictatorship just means that one person is in control. Aside from wanting a job and a decent house (not extravigant, mind you) I really don't care about personal power. I'd just fix things that are currently broken in today's government. I'd want to increase the freedom of people, etc.

Re:The problem

[NavyNuclearTechnicia]

That issue is taken care of in the Senate. The president is supposed to be the face of the nation, nor is he the person that's supposed to watch out specifically for any given region. The president is responsible for the nation AS A WHOLE, so wouldn't it make sense to elect the president based on the desires of the whole?

Depends

[baldass_newbie]

Certain states require breakdown of electoral reps by county. Others by % of popular vote. Others are winner take all.
I'm sure you can google the answer [google.com].
The reason for this is why we are a democratic republic, i.e. the Founding Fathers were very wary of direct elections because of how easily mob mentalities take over.
We didn't have direct election of U.S. Senators until the 20th century. I can't say the resulting populism shows anything other than it was a bad idea.
Just my $0.02.