This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

With a popular vote, the entire nation would have a say. by IrishJosh24

A Republican in CA, IL, or NY would have far more incentive to vote. Same for a Democrat in WY, UT, or OK.

In a real sense, with a popular vote, the entire nation would collectively decide who governs the nation. That approach makes sense to me. And you would get more of a say in that case, not less.

As it is now, the matter is decided state by state. In that system, whether your vote matters at all depends on where you live. And that's true in at least two ways. First, I think it's relatively safe to say a Republican's vote doesn't much matter in CA, IL, or NY. Same for a Democrat's vote in WY, UT, or OK. The result will be the same whether that voter votes or stays home. Second, the electoral college creates a relative weight problem that gives more power to certain states. For example, CA gets one vote in the electoral college for every 718,909 people. MT gets one for every 360,000. It's as though every vote in MT really counts for two CA votes.

I'm not convinced there is anything obviously superior about the electoral college. And I am not convinced, at all, that a popular vote would somehow mean CA and NY would govern the entire nation.