Is the Electoral College bullshit?

[Dallas Wildman]

Trump has managed to win the Presidency by the electoral vote while losing the popular vote by a quarter million.

Proponents say it is a way of mitigating the dangers of mob rule.

Detractors say that it encourages candidates to campaign in a handful of states (referred to as "swing states" or "battleground states") and that these seldom change over time.

Thing is though it's hard to find any other democratic nation on the planet leaves it to simple majorities to decide who becomes the next head of state.  The Commonwealth nations vote for the party and the winning majority party chooses the Prime Minister (although they can actually be chosen by the crown, but the crown as a matter of respect and custom delegates this authority). Germany's Chancellor (Frau Bundeskanzlerin) is chosen by the Bundestag ("Lower House") who shares power with the German President (Bundespraisident, who is elected by Bundestag "Upper House").  Plenty of other examples I could list.

[MrBogosity]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Tune in to this week's podcast.

[Dallas Wildman]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Tune in to this week's podcast.

Looking forward to it.

[Dallas Wildman]

One thing detractors have pointed out is that Governors are elected by popular vote in their states.  Thing is, if they (through the legislatures) enact bad policies then people can move to other states, whereas if the President (through Congress) enacts bad policies then people have one of two options:
-Move to another country, -OR-
-Wait another four years for an opportunity to choose another one
This essentially means Federal policymaking is hard to avoid and keep in check and it would be more-so without an electoral college.  We have a system designed maximize avenues for opposing interests influence politics and thus necessity for compromise and in many ways it still falls short.

[evensgrey]

One thing detractors have pointed out is that Governors are elected by popular vote in their states.  Thing is, if they (through the legislatures) enact bad policies then people can move to other states, whereas if the President (through Congress) enacts bad policies then people have one of two options:
-Move to another country, -OR-
-Wait another four years for an opportunity to choose another one
This essentially means Federal policymaking is hard to avoid and keep in check and it would be more-so without an electoral college.  We have a system designed maximize avenues for opposing interests influence politics and thus necessity for compromise and in many ways it still falls short.

I see two flaws in this reasoning.

Originally, the Federal government had relatively few powers and most of the effects of its' policies were relatively easily avoided (as they mostly affected things like interstate and international trade, which the second thing made relatively rare).

Travel was, at the time of the creation of this system, a real bitch in most places.  It was far more physically difficult in 1795 to up stakes and move yourself and your possessions from the interior of New York State to the interior of South Carolina than it now is to move from the US to Australia.  (The roads were bad to absent in most places outside cities, railways as we know them hadn't been invented yet, and there wasn't such a thing as a moving company that would pack up your household goods and transport them anywhere you wanted.)

[Travis Retriever]

The slightly less short answer: 

[Ibrahim90]

I would point out that the half of the population which lives in those areas have shitty voting preferences compared to the rest of the country (not that this says much about them, mind you).