Even though I am inclined to just nuke some popcorn, sit back and watch the show....

In passing, I must note that is a very good point: Because the primaries mirror the Electoral College to a great degree, many states that are "safe" in the general election (and therefore receive little attention) are hotly contested during the primaries, often by both parties. That forces all candidates to visit most states and become somewhat familiar with (or at least aware of) the issues most relevant to residents. Without the Electoral College the primaries would probably be decided by popular vote also and the whole affair become a purely urban concern.


Here I must quibble; while I realize you qualified your statement, it is not as simple as red vs. blue equaling rural vs. urban (and to the extent it is, the suburbs swing.) Correct me if I am wrong (it is your home state, after all) but Columbus and Cleveland would make OH pretty blue despite its large rural population—except Cincinatti is pretty red. It was one of things I found hinky about the 2004 election; despite all the reports of folks in Cleveland and Columbus giving up on voting after 10 hours in the cold November rain due to insufficient electronic voting machines, no such problems were reported in Cincinatti. Given that Bush won re-election by (essentially) 160,000 votes in OH, that bothered me a lot.

Cannoli recently suggested all the liberals in Houston and Dallas should not be allowed to turn TX blue, but the fact is there ain't that many liberals in Houston or Dallas, else they would do exactly that whether he liked it or not. In fact, as I pointed out to him, the most liberal, or at least Democratic, areas in TX consist of a single city (Austin) and rural areas in the Rio Grande Valley and the Piney Woods. Those are the areas that benefited most from farm subsidies and other largely Democratic federal programs designed for subsistence farmers, though Democrats embracing and Republicans largely abandoning racial equality helped in the Valley (but hurt in the more traditionally Southern east.)

Without the Electoral College, presidential elections would become an almost purely urban campaign, but it does not follow from that Democrats would own the White House (though even if it did that would be a partisan and poor reason for changing election laws.) Rural areas tend to be red and urban areas tend to be blue, but it is only a very loose tendency, close enough in most places that it is not automatic unless the state as a whole is very partisan and/or one of the nominees is absolutely awful. I suspect those arguing for a direct popular vote from purely partisan motives would quickly find that out the hard way if it were adopted. Democrats lost the rural regions when they turned their backs on farmers, and turning their backs on (the rest of) labor is hurting them in cities now, too, else OH would not even be close and PA, MI and WI would never be in play.


I do not think that entirely fair, for two reasons.

First and foremost, while the terms can be parsed both ways, America is more a constitutional representative republic than a democracy. Hence our first impulse when the validity of something is challenged is not to consider the majoritys preference, but whether it complies with the Constitution and other federal laws. That is no accident, and ultimately a good thing; it prevents atrocities resulting from a mad and/or inflamed majority deciding all Muslims are terrorists or all pro lifers are fascists, and perpetrating some appalling national tragedy.

I still contend the Ninth and Tenth Amendments effectively prohibit slavery on a similar basis, because that is the idea the Constitution repeatedly reflects: Because we are ultimately governed by LAWS our elected representatives enact, rather than simple referenda by those represenatatives or the general public, minority rights are protected from majority abuse. Thus amending our highest national law requires two-thirds of the states or Congress to propose and three-fourths to ratify it, rather than a simple popular majority. As a result, the US Constitution has only been amended about once per decade in its 220 year existence, and nearly half of those amendments were introduced with it but ratified separately.

The other thing is, it is REALLY unfair to compare America as "the birthplace of modern Democracy" to the UK as a country that "took up the practice." We owe most of our federal character to the successes and failures of British parliamentary democracy, traced all the way back to Runnymede and the first limits on absolute federal power through local representatives of the people. Granted, the petty nobility of the time had little accountability to the people, and the king still retained great power, but by 1776 both of those things had changed drastically.

The problem with Britain then was not that it was undemocratic, per se, but that it did not extend the franchise to colonies. Manchester and Liverpool residents had taxation WITH representation, but the colonies had only royally appointed governors (one of the few powers the monarch retained.) Prime Minister William Pitt echoed protests against taxing unrepresented colonies, but without that representation the parliamentary majority was against him. America considered that tyranny, particularly as both federal taxes and other authority increased without their consent or even consultation, but residents of Guam or the US Virgin Islands might be perplexed at the suggestion todays US is more democratic.

Had Britain not then been "the vanguard of democracy," George III would have simply levied another huge army to send against American colonies that only prevailed at Yorktown because the French navy prevented the arrival of British reinforcements. He certainly WANTED to—but Parliament required he accept a peace and, being little more than a figurehead of a democratically chosen government, he was legally bound to comply.

Not that I disagree with your arguments in the main, I am just being (perhaps unduly) particular on a few of them.