TallMike: the constitution designed the Presidential election to be representative, but not democratic. If none of the states allowed popular elections of the electors for President that would be fine with the constitution and the people who wrote it.
The reason is so that regional issues will get a fair hearing, even if the region is sparsely populated.
It also has to do with how much the general public actually knows about the qualifications of the candidates. Having electors selected by state legislatures is more likely to produce an informed electorate than popular elections.
Since Hillary has a public record, everyone should know she is a political whore. Donald Trump on the other hand looks like he may become one if elected, so to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi on the ACA, you'll have to elect him to find out.
Bernie not a whore? He's just not very successful at it. His list of top donors can be found here:
So, what do you think? If Hillary drops out of the race, who will Democrats put up in her place? 1) An unknown yes-man, like Tim Kaine? 2) A geriatric work horse like Algore or the guy who served in Vietnam? 3) A protest candidate like Bernie? 4) Somebody with Hillary's aptitude for crime like Sharpton? 5) Another witch who hates Americans like Michael?
DING. Only one nasty trick, but don't try it while sleepy. 22.
drwho - what a surprise - I disagree with your analysis that state legislatures would produce a more informed choice. Perhaps when we elected statemen to legislatures, and before gerrymandering became the republican's main currency, you would be right. But as too many legislatures are filled with political hacks who couldn't be elected without gross gerrymandering, your argument falls.
Diane, I'm shocked!But regardless of how the Republicans or Democrats get elected I doubt that the general public would be any better qualified to pick a president or more accurately, electors for president.
B.T.W. gerrymandering is a game both parties play. Part of the problem with corruption in politics is the parties. The existence of parties (almost certainly a political necessity) creates the situation where politicians are expected to toe their party's line rather than vote their conscience.
Diane, we may actually have a point of agreement. The electoral college is not ideal. It was designed by people who hoped that political parties would never come into existence. They were wrong. Once parties came into existence the electoral college guaranteed that there could only be 2 major parties.
However, I disagree with the notion that having the president elected directly by the people would be a better system.