This is the United States. The President is chosen by the states. Each state may decide how its electors are decided. The number of electors is weighted to avoid more populous states from dominating less populous states; it's a balance between tyranny of the majority vs minority rule.
Direct election isn't a solution, as implementing mob rule is prone to inspiring civil war. Electoral College is better geared toward preserving liberty, an imperative in our culture.
> This is the United States. The President is chosen by the states. Each state may decide how its electors are decided. The number of electors is weighted to avoid more populous states from dominating less populous states; it's a balance between tyranny of the majority vs minority rule.
> Electoral College is better geared toward preserving liberty, an imperative in our culture.
Less populous states are still greatly outweighed. Wyoming is very unlikely to ever determine a presidential election result.
Even then, if a single president can ruin the idea of federalism, then that is more a sign that the president is too powerful.
> Direct election isn't a solution, as implementing mob rule is prone to inspiring civil war.
US presidential elections have already inspired one civil war.
Bush got almost 70% of the vote in Wyoming in 2000. It’s a fairly safe Republican state, the only time it’s voted Democrat since WW2 was when Barry Goldwater was the republican candidate.
On the other hand, a big swing state like Florida matters for candidates. Clinton can win Florida and then afford to lose several smaller swing states. Trump has to win Florida to have any chance.
Do the math; I did. Direct election would make low-population states have significantly less influence. EC doubles (or more) the effective weight of a vote in 6 states.
Direct election isn't a solution, as implementing mob rule is prone to inspiring civil war. Electoral College is better geared toward preserving liberty, an imperative in our culture.