Americans are faced with a very flawed and criminally misused method of voting to elect our President and Vice President. The method used is called the Electoral College, these being appointed by State hierarchy of the winning candidate, the appointed representatives of each State are those that meet in Washington and actually vote our President into Office. Some citizens still believe they vote a President into office, this of course is not true, our Constitution has established that an appointed Electoral College or EC-representatives will cast their votes and elect our President. These representatives are appointed by leaders (ie...political hacks) within each State whose Presidential candidate (predominately Democrat or Republican) wins the State Popular Vote. It is these appointed representatives (of each State) who after the Popular Election then meet in Washington DC to cast their votes and elect our President.
The number of Electoral College representatives for each State is determined by the number of Senators (always two), plus members in the House (whose number depend on population within each State), never making fewer than three (3) EC-rep's for a State. Many believe these EC-rep's are restricted by our Constitution to vote according to wishes of those who appoint them, or at least is related in some way to Popular Vote of citizens. Again this is not a fact or true, also the labyrinth of stories told about this process are many, a more complete story is stranger than fiction. Do these facts so far raise issue of question regarding obvious opportunity for misuse and control by a few powerful individuals?
A first issue for concern is that bylaws of each State regarding Electoral College are subject to and written by leaders within each individual State. It is obvious these leaders will have interest in the outcome of these election results. It then is obviously unwise permitting these small groups of self interested political-leaders to make these laws, especially considering they bypass input from both citizens within their State not to mention citizens of States around the nation. The possibility not only indicates, but invites skewed laws benefiting only those leaders who make the laws. The total lack of control by citizens of every State could and does result in skewed laws benefiting only those leaders who make these laws. Biased laws of the past have worked to the disadvantage of citizens, and specific groups of citizens.
The second issue is that only two States in the United States have drawn up bylaws mandating their EC representatives (must vote) according to results of Citizens Popular Vote. There was attempt by 26-States to enact laws mandating their EC must vote according to Popular Vote, but as was shown in the Florida 2000 election, these laws are so full of loop-holes, even a crooked lawyer has trouble interpreting them. After the 2000 election political-football was played with the Florida EC, the DEM-party who (supposedly) lost the Popular Vote said the GOP win would be for naught, as the GOP EC-rep's would vote instead for the DEM candidate. Does this show that these few individuals involved in establishing electoral procedural law might prejudice or negate the purpose and will of some or all citizens within the State, and perhaps the nation, and even these (loyal) EC-rep's might turn on their masters and vote contrary to everyone's wishes. It is a fact there is no national rule or law safeguarding against this happening, and political party in power gerrymandering or redrawing districts within the State to swing voting in their favor is only one of the dirty tricks both Dem and Gop have used to guarantee control over elections.
The third issue is that within State elections except for two States, the EC votes available within that State are (all) given to the candidate who wins the Popular Vote, and a majority is not required for winner take all. This 'Winner take All' provision actually perpetuates only two political parties, essentially shutting out any (third place) third-party. Giving all these EC-Votes to a candidate (political party) who won their State election, negates the votes of citizens whose political party lost, possibly as much as 49% of that States voters. These additional unearned votes (belonging to the opposing political party) now giving advantage to their opposition nationwide, large population States in this way certainly overpowering the election results of small states. Consider the possibility of a single political (DEM/GOP) party deliberately (gerrymandering and) drawing up EC-Laws within a number of large States. Using "Winner Take All" result, they could easily negate EC-Votes of many other smaller States. Consider also this same group gerrymandering their State boundaries to guarantee they win the election, this happened in Texas in 2004 when an out of schedule re-drawing of districts was forced by the political power that then won election in that State.
One reason given for having the Electoral College is that it gives some advantage to smaller States. Relate this to New Mexico or North Dakota plus similar small States having a total of around 3-4-5-6-7 EC votes, explain what advantage these small States have over a neighboring State like California who have 54-EC votes. It is obvious that California has a large advantage over a significant number of smaller populated States. This is the advantage small States are given, it also explains why leaders within political parties concentrate on the eight largest populated States in America. It takes 275 EC-Votes to elect the President.
Ask yourself, is the Electoral College actually un-democratic in purpose and/or result. Could this explain the nationwide drop in voter participation, it is a fact that less than 48% the of eligible voters in America voted in election year 2000. Hint, Americas elections are referred to quite accurately as "Winner Take All." Now the obvious question is, who in fact is the winner? This question quite evidently answered within another pithy saying concerning politic's in America, accurately describing our choices as among the lesser of two evils.
This graft (graph) gives some idea how a corrupted political system is used to enable (only) the "Lesser of Two Evils" in which the Empire-Elite sometimes called the Military Industrial Complex controls our government.
Consider the following, it is suggested we (replace) the "Winner Take All" elections with a "Proportional Rep" election process. In this type of election multi-rep's are elected in proportion to Popular Vote result. A simple description of this method is, a candidate getting 49% of the votes is elected to have 49% power of office, and the candidate with 51% of the vote elected with 51% power of the office. Considering the fact that the vast number of elections votes go to Dem/Gop candidates, and only one of these two will win (today by margins often of a few hundred votes), instead the result of 'Proportion Election' would mean a marginally larger government, but representing (proportionately) a majority of Americans. After considering the above, also ask yourself if it would not be better if our President should be elected to Office by "We the People" popular vote, instead of these mysterious EC-rep appointed voters?