WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
This is basically just another case of people deciding that they don't need to use the mechanisms set up in the constitution (either to use the electoral college as stated, or to amend it out of existence), and I think there's been enough of that.
The argument is being made that the electoral college has never functioned as intended... basically by its proponents.
Quote
Protective function of Electoral College
Opponents of a national popular vote contend that the Electoral College serves to protect the country from the election of a person who is unfit to be president. Certain founders conceived of the Electoral College as a deliberative body which would weigh the inputs of the states, but not be bound by them, in selecting the president.However, the Electoral College has never served such a role in practice. From 1796 onward, presidential electors have acted as "rubber stamps" for their parties' nominees. As of 2016, no election outcome has been determined by an elector deviating from the will of their state, and twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws punishing such "faithless electors". Moreover, the National Popular Interstate Compact does not eliminate the Electoral College or affect faithless elector laws; it merely changes the way in which electors are pledged by the participating states.
Yeah, I tend to agree.
But if a part of the constitution isn't working, you amend it.