no, i am not trying to denigrate the old guys. they had it going on. for their day, the stuff they did was great. is the constitution a “living document” or “set in stone”?
originally, the electoral college behave the way it does today… go look back at the early elections. an entire state’s electorate voting for one candidate was by no means the standard asit is today. somewhere along the line, the two parties tweaked things towards the modern set-up that 48 (maine and some midwestern state) still adhere to.
if we were stil operating under the electoral college scheme as intended by the founding fathers sans the two party co-opting, things would have played alot differently.
if electoral votes were prorated as a percentage of a given states popular vote bush and gore would have pretty much split fla. down the middle. nader would have gotten one or two votes in such a system (in cali.). in a tie or close race, the third party guy holding a few votes is literally the decision maker when he signs over his electoral votes. it is no surprise the republidemocancrats like things just the way they are.
the electoral college, as originally intended was swell. the way it stands today goes against the very idea of democracy. as a conservative registered in hawaii it is painful to know that my vote may very well count for anything under the present formula. each state regulates the allocation of electoral votes. most electors take “marching orders” from the guvnor.
in the last election, an elector from DC abstained from voting. my research showed that such had never happened before. i saw no mention/discussion of this in the press. fascinating stuff indeed…the people make their wishes known through the popular ballot and then the “leadership class” knows better and omits to perform the only obligation of required.