Unfaithful

[Big RR]

can you imagine the hysteria from some quarters had BHO been born in Hawaii before it became a state?)

Perhaps, but there was no such hysteria when Barry Goldwater (the republican nominee in 1964) was born in the Territory of Arizona.

I have heard more than once from otherwise intelligent people is that voters in the smaller states would not bother if it were all decided in CA, NY and TX

Well, I'm not all that certain that the most populous states could swing the vote that way, but right now each vote in a small state like Vermont or Wyoming is worth much more in terms of (per capita) electoral votes than a single vote in NY or CA.

See this table: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... 1450119297

While these are old records (2004 and 2008) can easily be seen, a vote in Wyoming is worth nearly 4 times the electoral votes than a vote in California, so it's not likely the smaller states would every agree to give up that advantage.

As for Hamilton and his elitist views (shared by many of the founding fathers), that is one of the primary reasons we have and electoral college--to keep the riff raff out--not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Yes I had forgotten about AuH2O.

But the point I am making about the smaller states is that those who defend the EC system say that it gives them a voice they would not otherwise have; and under a transparent popular vote system every vote would count the same. And yes, under the EC a vote in VT counts for 3+ times a vote in CA. So that argument (giving a voice to the otherwise mute) is exactly backwards.

[RayThom]

That's deaf, not mute.

You don't say!

[Econoline]

One defense of the EC system is that it gives a voice to those who would otherwise be unheard, and the argument I have heard more than once from otherwise intelligent people is that voters in the smaller states would not bother if it were all decided in CA, NY and TX. The exact opposite is true. A strictly popular vote system would mean that a R vote in VT is worth exactly the same as a D vote in CA

Exactly. Under the current "winner-take-all" system, a Democrat in Texas or Georgia—or a Republican in Illinois or New York—has approximately ZERO chance of his or her individual vote affecting the outcome of a Presidential election. 47.7% of those who voted for POTUS in Texas, 49% of those in Georgia, 44.2% of those in Illinois, and 41% of those in New York did NOT vote for the candidate who won their state—and thus, in effect, had their votes thrown away. That's almost 12 million disenfranchised voters in just those 4 states. How can anyone defend this as fair?

For that matter, in Wisconsin 52.8% of voters voted AGAINST Trump (in Michigan it was 52.5%; in Pennsylvania it was 51.5%; in Florida it was 51%), but Trump still got 100% of those Electoral votes!

[Econoline]