Direct popular vote via the electoral college

[Admiral Yi]

It would leave the talking heads without much to do on election night. 

[Eddie Teach]

They could spend more time on congressional races.

[Josquius]

It would leave the talking heads without much to do on election night. 

It'd be more interesting no?
District by District vote counts come in and you have two running totals going up against each other. You can never be absolutely sure one has won unless they somehow get more than  50% of the elctorate. Which won't happen even by the end of the night.

[Admiral Yi]

It'd be more interesting no?
District by District vote counts come in and you have two running totals going up against each other. You can never be absolutely sure one has won unless they somehow get more than  50% of the elctorate. Which won't happen even by the end of the night.

It would be as interesting as watching two numbers on a screen change.

[Josquius]

Vs. Watching  nothing?

[Tonitrus]

Why is it a bad idea?

In general, I already don't like rules that force electors to vote a certain way.  If it were up to me, I'd make them a more public part of the electoral process at the state level, instead of the invisible unknowns that they currently are.

Opposition to the direct election of the chief executive is another matter, but that's not really related to this topic.  The current system allows Devin Nunes to bleat about "the Democrats trying to sabotage the democratic election of the president" when he knows goddamn well that this president was not democratically elected.  One of the direct benefits of the compact is at least making such bleating non-hypocritical.

I couldn't care less about Nunes bleats. 

But I also know that my views on the topic are a bit archaic.  I also think the amendment that made for the direct election of Senators was a bad idea (I think, ideally, that it would make people think more about, and make much more relevant, their own state-level politics)...though I recognize there were some very good reasons for it. 

And while we think the EC is a subversion of the principles of democracy, we let pass the fact that term limits are also a pretty terrible subversion of democratic principles.

[Admiral Yi]

On that note, Tom Steyer (remember him?) is running ads rebranding himself as the term limit candidate.

Are youse guys who browse youtube a lot getting inundated with campaign ads?  I'm wondering if it's just an Iowa thing right now.

[Tonitrus]

I've seen a bunch of his ads on local TV channels back here in WA.

[Valmy]

On that note, Tom Steyer (remember him?) is running ads rebranding himself as the term limit candidate.

Are youse guys who browse youtube a lot getting inundated with campaign ads?  I'm wondering if it's just an Iowa thing right now.

Yes I have seen his ads from time to time. Who is he again? I am really puzzled.

[Valmy]

It would leave the talking heads without much to do on election night. 

They can tell us about the Congressional districts.

[Valmy]

It is impractical, not impossible and perhaps he's right that it shouldn't be changed without overwhelming support. It's certainly not a dishonest position to take.

Absolutely not one letter or word of the Constitution needs to be changed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it demand we do the elections the way we do now, it is just as Constitutional as any other way the electors vote including this proposal.

Maybe people should actually read the Constitution before they start lecturing us about subverting it? Maybe if one understood the Constitution they wouldn't end up taking dishonest positions.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes I have seen his ads from time to time. Who is he again? I am really puzzled.

He's the billionaire hedge fund guy I think.

[Tonitrus]

It is impractical, not impossible and perhaps he's right that it shouldn't be changed without overwhelming support. It's certainly not a dishonest position to take.

Absolutely not one letter or word of the Constitution needs to be changed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it demand we do the elections the way we do now, it is just as Constitutional as any other way the electors vote including this proposal.

Maybe people should actually read the Constitution before they start lecturing us about subverting it? Maybe if one understood the Constitution they wouldn't end up taking dishonest positions.

If someone doesn't understand something, is it really possible for them to have a dishonest (as opposed to just being mistaken) position on it?

[Valmy]

If someone doesn't understand something, is it really possible for them to have a dishonest (as opposed to just being mistaken) position on it?

Well um....ok got me there.

[dps]

If you want to change the Constitution, amend it, don't try to subvert it.

How does this subvert the Constitution? That is 100% Constitutional. The Constitution leaves it up to the state.

See reply #6.  I thought the proposal would do away with individual electors;  apparently it does not.