You know as a tater tot when I first heard that term, I thought it was where electricians went to get their degrees.

Anyway this should be a healthy debate, I know a certain local will especially enjoy this.

The founding fathers, as freedom-loving educated wealthy snobs as they were, were frightened by direct democracy and mob rule (which they're right about) so they devised that Electoral College to which decide Presidential elections and not say the popular vote.

There're arguments for and against getting rid of the Electoral College method. Some argue that this would forever get rid of the damn swing states and how both parties couldn't give a rat's ass about 40 states but adore and cuddle and handjob 10 or so states every 4 years. Seriously why does friggin Iowa matter more than California and Texas combined?

Or that our electing system is outdated and we need to allow the majority-voted candidates to actually win the Presidency and not lose by a technicality.

Others argue we'll become even more dysfunctional voting-time with such a two-party friendly system like the E.C. wrecked, it would open up for splintering and hey the Greens and Libertarians would matter more and Tea Baggers would have their own candidate if the GOP don't cooperate or whatever. In short, plurality would be next to impossible. (I'm reminded of France and other democracies which have first and second rounds of voting to weed out the low-voted candidates.) Or that save for 3 (or is it 4?) occassions, the system has actually worked in line with the popular vote.

What do you all think?