woodguru

Because that would further water down the electoral balance if red states if not follow suit. The states that already split the electoral according to the vote have it right, but all have to do it or those that do give the party that refuses an added advantage.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Since the dawn of history man has vainly sought to ordain order and advance social justice through political legalism. Liberty, equal­ity, brotherhood, justice, security, freedom—and especially self-gov­ernment—have long enjoyed stat­ure in political clichés.

On the surface, democracy seems to encompass all social ideals and appears to be the epit­ome of political government. The motivating principle asserts the inherent right of all to participate in government and determine pub­lic policy. But with unquestioned power invested in popular opinion, democratic idealism deteriorates rapidly into government by organ­ized majorities.

Even the authoritarian majori­ties who imagine themselves self-governed have no real understanding of political subterfuge and simply endorse whatever their leaders are pleased to tell them. And since it is easier to subjugate and manipulate those who believe themselves free, the grand illusion of freedom and self-government is carefully preserved by the strat­egists who constantly maneuver behind the democratic stage.

Since democracy is not of itself a stable form of government, but rather a method of ordaining so­cial change, all forms of political tyranny can easily win the en­dorsement of the majority. The irresponsible elements of any so­ciety are readily persuaded to state-sponsored beggary on the as­surance their personal problems will be miraculously solved by some political nostrum a clever candidate advises them to try. To exercise control over an apparent­ly self-governed democracy is only to understand and utilize the principles of mass psychology. The demagogues who successfully ex­ploit social and economic disorders and identify themselves with the majority, ultimately attain oli­garchic power.

Democracy has always enjoyed broad acclaim as the champion of political justice. But history amply indicates that government by pop­ular opinion has spawned nothing but social and moral chaos. No matter how wisely begun, skillful­ly expedited, or enlightened the self-governed, the self-governed states have followed similar pat­terns of degeneration to mob an­archy. When laws fail, the anarchy must be brought under control by some form of dictatorial govern­ment, until counterrevolution in time completes the cycle by return­ing political process to the hands of the people. The entire gamut precludes human liberty and so­cial justice, as political instability insures social disorder and minor­ity oppression in every phase.

Political societies and their vari­ous governments have come and gone while man has been advanc­ing his civilization, but the basic problems attendant to human re­lationships continue. Many, now as in the past, despairingly believe it is fundamentally more sound and morally easier to be controlled by an illusionary self-governed legal system than to master the art of governing oneself.

As free moral agents, individ­uals tend to seek justice through spiritual values, while individuals acting collectively seek favoritism through deliberate applications of political injustice. Individuals must laboriously ponder justice through conscience, while political majorities have only to embrace an ideology to have it automati­cally proclaimed morally correct regardless of the injustice it may inflict. Despotism, no matter by what name it masquerades, is quick to exploit this human in­fatuation with group motivation. Human progress depends entirely upon the intrinsic moral judg­ment of self-governed individu­als, politically controlled in the minimum degree that prevents infringement on the human rights and opportunities of others.

Constitutional legalism is both the ancient and modern political antidote for democratic oppres­sion. But no matter how eloquent­ly it defines the rights and virtues of individuals or how boldly it af­firms opposition to majority in­justice, it is still only a document of public intention. If the inten­tion of the society changes, the constitution is automatically in­validated. Reappraisals of constitutional application are continually substi­tuted for original intent when le­galism no longer reflects the true spirit of the society it governs. Constitutional legalism may ac­curately recognize the basic dif­ferences in human desires, initia­tives, and capabilities, and assure that the fruits of human effort will be equitably divided in direct proportion to contribution. It may also impartially administer jus­tice. But as soon as the legal sys­tem appears less than perfect to a majority that lacks the human en­ergies necessary to utilize its per­fections, the endless search for the golden mean of political medioc­rity resumes.

The best government, and the only government that will perma­nently benefit mankind, is intro­spection; for it alone can identify true social responsibilities and teach us to govern ourselves with moral restraint. Human life de­mands effective living. Effective living demands that the human spirit be allowed to seek and at­tain justification through self-chosen channels. The greatest and most far-reaching contributions to the cause of human enlighten­ment have never developed from majority opinions, but rather from inspired individuals quite often at odds with their contempo­raries. The only restraint that can ever be imposed on the democratic oppression that stifles human spirit is the power of personal character, developed through the moral growth of self-sufficient in­dividuals.

As man apprehensively surveys the future, he is inclined to believe that the world has only to turn to the self-government of democracy to bring human problems to a swift and happy conclusion. But externally applied self-governing political concepts, no matter how lofty their legal and moral intent, can never provide mankind with a hopeful future. Mankind must learn to govern from deep within the individual; and when man at last has mastered himself, respon­sible human relationships will be the first and most important by­products of his accomplishment.

By: Robert K. Newell

Mr. Newell operates a farm near Marcellus, Michigan, one of his "crops" being an oc­casional article.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

I know about the Southren states counting slaves as ? 2/3 of a person? But tell me, how did, say, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maine with representatives? Under your revision, they along with 44 ( I have to include Illinois with the other big 2) will never have a voice in an election again. Remember, a popular vote is democracy, otherwise called mob rule. If 51% vote in a POTUS, 49% are not going to be happy about it because it will be impossible for a vote to turn out any other way.

straightUp Loc: California

I got that from the debt clock for California. https://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html So I'm not pulling it out of my ass... I read your link and it starts off talking about the contradictions in the estimates... (My years in business intelligence has educated me pretty well on how easy it is to come up with multiple perspectives on one data set, depending on the story you want to tell. It's kind of a sport). So my question is... how do we know the number YOU found is accurate?

Also, notice the authors have pointed out that they are *projecting* future values... (sneaky). So, in case you didn't know this... that 2.8 trillion is NOT the actual debt - it's a projection of what the debt MIGHT be in the future.

Look, you can labor the numbers all you want if you think that's going to prove some point. I think the bigger point is that debt by itself is a meaningless assessment of an economy. Heck the U.S. has the largest debt in the world... According to your shallow logic that would make America the shittiest place on earth. Is it? Or is the U.S. (like California) a massive economy that can handle massive debts?

Seriously, if this is all you got... there's no argument and I already know you hate California for whatever reason. So we're done, right?

straightUp Loc: California

I believe it was 3/5ths.


How did they with representatives? I'm not sure what you mean.


I don't have a "revision". I was describing the facts. If you're referring to my suggestion that every citizen be counted equally, the idea is to change the distribution of representatives. I was not suggesting that we remove the EC (as I said, the EC makes no difference). Nor did I suggest we switch to a popular vote (because that would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would not be needed if representation returned to what the founders intended before Congress broke it in 1913.)

If you're problem is with my suggestion that we give each citizen an equal vote, then I'm sorry but I think that's the way it should be and so did the founders of this republic.

Let me ask you this... Do you think it's fair that the 40 million Americans in California are suppressed? Because they are. I've done the math... one voter in Wyoming has the power of 5 voters in California. So your concern about people in small states not having a voice is exactly the reality of the larger states today, which actually makes you a hypocrite... You oppose the popular vote because you think it might give an unfair advantage to larger states so you defend the status quo because it gives an unfair advantage to rural states which isn't fair either, nor is it what the founders intended despite popular misinformation.

To this day, no one on your side has ever answered this. Gee, I wonder why.


Yes, a popular vote is ONE FORM of democracy... People have been calling it "mob rule" for centuries, most notably in situations where tyrannical forces are trying to break down democracy by weakening the faith citizens have in their own determination. This was the case during the fascist and Soviet takeovers from almost 100 years ago and with fascism back on the rise it looks like it's happening in America right now. And yet... another example of "mob rule" is the popular vote that Americans participate in every two years to elect our representatives. Where's outrage there bro?


No... 49% will be unhappy because they didn't win. There's no reason to assume the next vote won't be different. I understand that in many rural communities it's all about loyalty and that's fine, but most Americans live in places where they actually think about the issues and their minds DO change. Maybe you should give American citizens a little more credit instead of assuming they are all mindless sheep.

A lot of people who voted for Trump in 2016 won't be voting for him in 2020.

straightUp Loc: California

Thanks for posting that two-part transcript. BTW, if you're just copying what someone else wrote then you can always link to it. (saves room on the servers) ;)

I read the transcript... it's actually pretty good rhetoric. The facts are there for validation while at the same time developing a misleading context. This has always been the genius of the Heritage Foundation and similar think tanks. I mention this because it ties in directly to the point being made in England's speech, that a democracy based on a popular vote is subject to tyranny by the majority.

I can't argue with that because it's a fact... but that doesn't mean other facts aren't being omitted and that's the basis of this kind of rhetoric. What is notably absent from this particular spin is the distinction between LAW and WILL.

In other words, if you make it a LAW that every citizen gets an equal vote, it will be left to the WILL of the people to keep it real. If you make it a LAW that citizens get unequal votes then WILL (for many) becomes irrelevant.

Trent England is implying that we must suppress popular votes as a matter of LAW. There is no way anyone can say that doesn't interfere with free will. In fact for all this worry about tyranny of the majority, the suggested solution is just another form of tyranny... tyranny of the elite.

And who gets to decide who the elite will be? Republicans? Rural states?

At least if you make the LAW equal, ALL American citizens will have a chance to exercise their will. Trust me, I have grave concerns that many of us, maybe even the majority will screw it up. We Americans are by far the most politically uneducated people in the developed world, so my expectations are not high. But at least the LAW would give us the freedom to TRY and make good decisions and if we don't, we only have ourselves to blame.

In my opinion, equal law suites the American tradition better. The "land of the free, home of the brave" means we value freedom and are willing to endure all the threats and dangers that come with it. Giving everyone an equal vote = freedom. Enduring the threat of "mob rule" is the price we should be willing to pay for it. The same can be said of any of our freedoms... the threat of hate speech, the threat of mass shootings, these are all prices we pay for our freedoms which is exactly why the land of the free is home to the brave.

If your scared of majority rule, then you should live in China where the LAW makes majority rule impossible.

Trent England left ALL of this out of course because he (along with the Heritage Foundation) wants us to submit to LAWS that block our freedom of self-determination.

straightUp Loc: California

Good point slatten. Mmmm. so I've changed my mind - I don't want equal representation now. (LOL - just kidding). Seriously, if I could have it my way, I would make every voter take a citizenship test first to eliminate the millions of knuckleheads that vote for party because they don't have the intelligence to vote for issues. Trump would not have even got past the primaries.

But that would be a tall order because the last thing those who own this country want is an educated democracy. The reason why these plutocrats favor the unfair advantages of the little states is because the little states are in general less educated and therefore more easily fooled. Asking the plutocracy for a vetting system to weed the dumbshits out of public decisions would be like asking Putin to give us Crimea.

I think the best thing we can do is give all citizens an equal chance to participate in public decisions and do what we can to educate ourselves and each other to increase the odds that decisions would be sound.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Point taken , what is the real number. Back in 2009...10 i was more intune with state economies and at that time using only pensions and unfunded liabilities California debt exceeded a trillion dollars and considering regardless of tactical taxation every year California runs hundreds of. Billions in deficits . Considering California's immigration policies, welfare, medical ect, i would tend to believe since 09-10 the debt has at least doubled. 2016-may 2019 living in California i first hand experienced regulations/taxes imposed that were obvious acts of desperation. Several years from 2010 and approximately 2014 California sat at the edge of bankruptcy and only the art of shifting numbers on the books and borrowing from futures has California temporarily postponed the inevitable.
http://reason.com/2012/07/20/california-goes-bankrupt/

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

You’re welcome. Thanks, I’ll take that under advisement.

Thanks for your opinion.

The facts are there, because they have already been validated, that’s why they’re called facts. I am curious as to which part(s) you found to be misleading. If you’re willing to expand on that, I’d like to read it.

Not sure why you make the connection to the Heritage Foundation. Is it just because he contributes to the Heritage Guide? If that’s the case then, you’d have to apply your standard to the Wall Street Journal, and the other publications he contributes to. Fact is, he was invited as a guest speaker to Hillsdale College to speak as an individual, not to push any of the listed publications’ agendas. Your singular focus on the Heritage Foundation says more to me than anything else.

Well it’s a good thing you acknowledge it as fact, because, it is. The distinction between law and will was omitted because that wasn’t his point. He certainly doesn’t advocate for the suppression of free will. Reading any of his other writings clearly demonstrates this.

Where in this speech did you read this “implication”? What he is doing, is defending what is already LAW, the Constitution, in which is contained the method of the Electoral College system.

Surely it would. But again, I don’t see where in his speech such an implication exists. It would also contradict Mr. England’s foundational beliefs, which are mostly based on individual personal responsibility, and free will. In no way, fashion, or form does England attempt to suppress free will. If anything his speech shines a spotlight on the suppression of the free will of those in the minority in the case of a national popular vote.

Not one group, but all voters, like it has always been done. Red, blue, and purple.

I agree, and share the same concern. But at the same time, we have always had to carry such a heavy burden. Generations of past have shown good, bad, and indifference. What’s important is education for future generations.

I agree. And would add, not only endure, but actively oppose, by any means within reason and law.

Not scared. But, scoff at the notion of majority rule, to expose its idiocy, and the inevitable tyranny it leads to. A fact of which you already conceded. Why would would I have to move to China? Restraints against majority rule are codified in our Constitution. Perhaps I’ll consider it if the NPV movement actually accomplishes a constitutional amendment. Honestly, I don’t think I’ll be going anywhere soon.

Again with the Heritage Foundation... dude, he’s only an occasional contributor, same as he is with the other publications listed. He left it all out because it doesn’t apply, that’s your perceived implication. Mr. England recognizes that all law is force, which, again, is counter to his fundamental beliefs.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to read the speech, and sharing your thoughts and opinions. I’ve found not many here like to read more than say a couple of paragraphs. With that said; thank you.

straightUp Loc: California

I currently live in PA and I find the taxes here are much higher than they are in CA. I pay a lot more property tax in PA that's for damned sure. CA tends to lean on things like luxury tax to avoid cutting into people's ability to pay for necessities, you probably won't find a higher tax on cigarettes for instance and yes, sometimes it seems a desperate attempt to hike revenues. If California companies like Google and Apple actually paid their taxes, it probably wouldn't be such a problem.

I know your trying to drill the point that austerity is the answer, but I disagree. Just look at what austerity did to Greece. It's a short-sighted solution that fails every time and I don't know if Republicans will ever come to terms with that.

While I think you exaggerate the magnitude of California's financial woes, I will concede that over the long-run it IS a problem... but not without pointing out that almost every state in the union except maybe Alaska has the same problem, just on different scales. California's debt would crush a state like Kansas because the GDP in Kansas is a tiny fraction of what it is in California. In fact because of the smaller GDP, Kansas could never even develop such a high debt. It's popular for red state commentators to blow the minds of red state residents by pointing to the size of California's debt without explaining that they also have a much larger GDP.

I think the crux of the "problem" in CA specifically, is that it's policies are always being interrupted by a very dynamic democracy. One thing people don't seem to realize about California is that it's not as liberal as people think, there are also a LOT of conservatives here. The agricultural Central Valley rivals the redness of Texas, all the way down to the holy rollers on the radio. As a result, policies that were set to fund programs are often reversed resulting in a train-wreck and a lot of finger-pointing.

If we can just stick to a plan and enforce corporate taxes I think the problems would disappear.

That being said... here's an excerpt from the executive summary for California's 2019 budget.

The Budget Is in Remarkably Good Shape. It is difficult to overstate how good the budget’s condition is today. Under our estimates of revenues and spending, the state’s constitutional reserve would reach $14.5 billion by the end of 2019‑20. In addition, we project the Legislature will have an additional $14.8 billion in resources available to allocate in the 2019‑20 budget process. The Legislature can use these funds to build more budget reserves or make new one‑time and/or ongoing budget commitments. By historical standards, this surplus is extraordinary.

Again, certain numbers might be intentionally left out of the picture to produce a rosy tint, but I've been reading a LOT of rosy reports from a LOT of sources inside and outside of CA about this in recent years. I actually do think Jerry Brown has done an outstanding job of cleaning things up as he did once before way back when.

So, I think you bring up some good points, but I think your conclusions are somewhat biased. It's also a *little* annoying when you KNOW your state is a giver state so you KNOW some of the money you pay in federal tax is going to other states to subsidize them and the people in those "taker states" are telling you how financially irresponsible YOUR state is. As my English dad would say... "that's a bit thick." ;)


That pretty much describes the condition of the entire U.S. economy.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

We considered building a business in Redding California. Largely local government regulators for a ground up brick and mortar requires aid of an attorney $100,000 fee and over a year to get through the permit process and then pay a dozen agencies for various permits tens of thousands of dollars.
Bonner county Idaho it takes less than two weeks for permits.

While in Desert hot Springs California the resort we were staying at requested to construct their third mineral hot Springs swimming pool and the city demanded 1.5 million for toxic water runoffs into the soil, plus Building and construction permits. You can guess where the property owner told the city they could put their demands.

Also while in Redding California the state arbitrarily increased gas tax by .25 cents and had i licensed the new truck i purchased just two weeks earlier my license fees would have been just over $300 instead $767 was my amount due and my 5th wheel was even worse.
Property taxes are only a small portion of cost of living from state to state.
Idaho has a sliding scale taxation and unless your in the 1.% you would only pay the lowest tier. Property tax on our 5 acres is only a little over $300 per year but will increase when our home is finished being constructed. Medical , to add blue cross to my Medicare is only $49.00 a month and includes dental and eye glasses, food is about 30% less than what we paid in California and Diesel fuel i pay $2.79 per gallon and in California $2.00 more.

I could go on and list
And appreciate your points many we are not that far off.
Ill concede a draw since having you a friend isn't worth winning an agreement and this topic isn't winnable anyway since I'm not up to speed with more factual details as i was nearly a decade ago.

Take care,
Jack

straightUp Loc: California

I'm not disputing any of the facts. I'm saying that you can actually construct an entire illusion with proven facts alone and that's an artform that's been around since ancient Greece. I'll give you an example... the unemployment rate that presidents always mention when it drops. Obama did it and now Trump is doing it. They use one simple fact. The unemployment rate. It's an indisputable fact that the unemployment rate today is better than it's been for a long time... The illusion created is that there are fewer people out of work, but the part that gets left out is that the unemployment rate only counts people who are drawing on unemployment benefits. None of the people that have been out of work and no longer qualify for benefits are included in the picture. The fact remains true, but the context is misleading. It's a basic element of rhetorical discourse.


The article you pasted states that the author, Trent England, is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, so there's the connection and it seemed sufficient to use the HF as the example in my response.

Not even the HF itself will suggest they are unbiased. The HF is and always has been a think tank for conservative policy. You don't get a job at the HF as a policy analyst unless you have a conservative bias. This alone presents no issue for me, but as a frequent reader of HF publications, I have become very familiar with their use of rhetoric and I only mentioned it because I recognize the similarities between the article and a lot of HF publications.

Saying that I need to apply my standard to the WSJ doesn't help because I used to subscribe to that paper and I still read it on occasion... it's the same thing. Both organizations are informative, factual and respectable, the farthest thing from crack-pots like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck. But that doesn't mean they aren't biased or incapable of packaging facts to encourage a false impression.

England may have been invited to speak as an individual but his involvement in the Heritage Foundation all but guarantees that his personal bias is in-line with that of the HF and the transcript of his speech, at least in my mind, confirms that.


Well, of course that wasn't his point. When you're promoting a narrative you don't include issues that conflict with it. Nor do you overtly suggest things like the suppression of free-will if you know your audience would disagree. But the hard fact here is that he is defending the current election system which DOES suppress free-will. Sometimes all you need is logic to reveal the facts.


When you imply something it means you aren't stating it directly, so it's not like I can highlight it. But I have been explaining it.


Doesn't defending an existing law imply that you are arguing for its existence?

Also, I don't think think you're understanding my point. I actually support the Electoral College system as defined in the Constitution. The problem I have is with the current distribution of representatives, not the Electoral College and I'm dumbfounded by how this critical distinction is so invisible to so many Americans. We even have presidential candidates on the Democratic side arguing for the removal of the Electoral College. I don't know if they are really that confused or if they simply don't have the faith in their potential voters to understand the complications. It seems slogans rather than explanations win elections these days.

I think England is doing pretty much the same. He probably understands the distinction. He probably understands that the problem isn't the EC but the distribution of representatives, but he knows that the EC is catching all the flak on media and so he is using the facts of the EC (as designed) to defend it while ignoring the unfair distribution of representatives that has been developing since 1913 and turning the EC (as designed) into an agent of voter suppression (as NOT designed).

So it's by virtue of what he is saying AND what he is NOT saying that I am suggesting his support for voter suppression. He isn't saying it directly but that's how political rhetoric works. It's the art of suggesting something without actually saying it.


Why does everything have to be overtly stated? You agreed with my point because logic dictates, so what does it matter if Mr. England mentions it or not? Obviously, this is something he chose not to divulge.


Individual personal responsibility and free will is pretty much EVERYONE's stated foundational belief. Liberals, conservatives, libertarians - all of them claim that same virtue because it's popular. That doesn't mean they actually support it.

I don't know enough about Trent England to reach any conclusions about him as a person or a writer. But I am using very simple logic to test his argument in this case alone and I am finding conflicts. On one hand he is "saying" that people should have a voice, but on the other hand the system he is defending is preserving the unfair distribution of representatives that in reality conflicts with his "stated" belief and this is a reality he is leaving out. Either that or he is actually unaware of the contradiction - I'm assuming that as a policy analyst at HF, he is too intelligent for the later.


So, you are actually saying that all voters get to decide who will be excluded from voting. That should be fun to watch - LOL


Yes! I will always agree with that.


And you already conceded to the fact that the only alternative to the "tyranny" of majority rule is the "tyranny" of minority rule. This is the reality we have to deal with. As the saying goes, you can satisfy some people some of the time, but you can't satisfy all the people all the time. If every time an election happens the losers start calling the results a "tyranny" then I guess we'll always have a "tyranny".

I know I agreed that a majority would prevail (that's how democracy works) and at the time, we were calling that a "tyranny of the majority" because everyone else is. But is it really a tyranny? This is where I say, no it's not. And I'm calling bullsh*t on the founders for this one.

It wasn't ALL the founders either, it was just those from the southern states that wanted more representation in the federal government than their populations justified. They wanted to use their slave populations to justify more even though their slaves couldn't vote. They used the term "tyranny of the majority" as a buzzword in their arguments and it was total BS. Tyranny doesn't mean you got outvoted, it means you can't vote. Not the same thing. People need think about this instead of subscribing to the rhetoric of power-hungry slave owners from the 18th century.

If everyone gets an equal vote, there is no actual tyranny. Yes, there are losers but they are not barred from voting, nor are their votes devalued. The only system that would be better for all citizens would be something called a miracle.

In the meantime, with the current distortion in representation, it takes 5 votes in California to counter 1 vote in Wyoming... clearly not a fair situation. I would even argue that it's a partial tyranny because Californians effectively only get a 5th of a vote.

The only argument I've heard against a popular vote that makes any sense involves regional conflicts of interest and I think this can be handled on a case by case basis because I don't think those conflicts are as abundant as people think. If you can present at least one regional conflict of interest, I'll be more than happy to suggest a better solution for parity than the partial tyranny Trent England is defending.

In a nutshell, this is my position...

1. Stick with the Constitution which dictates that Congress shall elect the president.
2. Use the surrogate voters (Electoral College) to avoid corruption in Congress as that has ALWAYS been its purpose.

Those are the easy steps because it's already done.

3. Align representation to the most recent census to correct the 104-year fault that makes our democracy the most unfair example in the developed world.

4. Resolve regional conflicts on a case-by-case basis.

Put all the gloom and doom references to "majority rule" to bed. It hasn't been a valid issue since the 13th Amendment, when 3/5th humans were eliminated

I'm always up for more argument on this, but I just want to make sure people understand my position before engaging any further. I'm sure you understand.

Radiance3

===============
Here are the more compelling justifications why Electoral College is needed in deciding the presidential and VP election.

Reasons to Keep the Electoral College
Electoral College Prepares to Count Votes. Hulton Archives Getty's Image.
byRobert Longley
Updated August 22, 2019
Under the Electoral College system, it is possible for a presidential candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president of the United States by winning in only a handful of key states.

Did the Founding Fathers—the framers of the Constitution—not realize that the Electoral College system effectively took the power to select the American president out of the hands of the American people?
In fact, the Founders always intended that the states—not the people—select the president.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the Electoral College system. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by the direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.

Beware the Tyranny of the Majority
To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers gave the American public of their day little credit for political awareness when it came to selecting the president.

Here are some of their telling statements from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." — Delegate Elbridge Gerry, July 25, 1787.

"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." — Delegate George Mason, July 17, 1787.

"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." — Delegate Elbridge Gerry, July 19, 1787
The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing the unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority."
In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public.

Small States Get Equal Voice
The Electoral College helps give rural states with lower populations an equal voice.
If the popular vote alone decided elections, the presidential candidates would rarely visit those states or consider the needs of rural residents in their policy platforms.
Due to the Electoral College process, candidates must get votes from multiple states—large and small—thus helping to ensure that the president will address the needs of the entire country.

Preserving Federalism
The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism—the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.
Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through a direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United States Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.

MR Mister Loc: Washington DC

For thus uninformed, these laws were written by the democrats who dominated the south after the end of slavery.

MR Mister Loc: Washington DC

Great article thanks for it.
Sadly the lefties will not understand much of it.