Yep…the Right is not overfond of democracy. Wouldn't want all those popular votes to count, now, would we?

I've yet to know if this is a strength or weakness of mine, but I always seem to see the benefits and downfalls of so many issues.

I like things simple, popular vote, simple. Very straight forward and makes total sense.

Then, you have parts the country that need to have their vote count as well. The states with lower populations in a popular vote contest will always lose out to the more populated areas and I don't think that is right either. The less populated ares need to get attention from candidates and their votes need to matter or else the metro areas will be over-weighted in importance of election outcomes.

What I would really like to change about our system is the winner-take-all aspect. Candidates should receive a percentage of the votes they actually got in a state. If a candidate got 60% of a states votes, they should only get 60% of the electoral votes and the losing candidate should get 40% (it wouldn't be that simple of a 60-40 split due to other candidates getting votes too, but you get the point). I've never understood or liked the winner-take-all outcomes.

Population centers have already skewed the EC.

As if 2010, 225 million or so people live in cities, 59 million or so live in rural-defined areas.

A candidate could win eleven of the twelve largest electoral vote getting states and win the presidency...even if they lose all other states combined.

Perhaps a bigger issue is how ridiculously small Congress is. 39.5 million people live in California. Two senators represent.

Yeah, there's no need for the Electoral College!

Who are you yelling at and why?