Yeah, I think Huntsman wouldn't be a bad choice at all.

I see Berman's been mentioned as a possible. Thoughts on that?

I have a question, that's probably ridiculously basic--I'm trying to understand what the electoral college is meant to achieve. I've seen, for instance, it explained that it prevents big states like Texas or California from getting their way--but if everyone lives in Texas or California and only two people live in Rhode Island or wherever, why shouldn't Texas and California decide? The fact that they live in the same state is less important than the fact that it's the popular vote, surely?

Then again, I've read that I'm misunderstanding the position--Obama didn't get elected the President of the United People of America--he's the Prez of the States and that's why the college is needed to distribute the power across them, regardless of where the people are.

Is that that important about the US?

For David Simon, that's giddy optimism. Scary, huh? Maybe that's why I have a crush on him...maybe I always wondered what it was like to be the cheery one.

I've always wondered why China can be so short sighted as to fish to depletion other nations seas. Where do they think the fish they eat is going to come from if they catch them all? Or are Chinese fish magical and will infinitely produce?

I'm trying to understand what the electoral college is meant to achieve.

It bumps up the relative importance of the sparsely-populated states, because it is that important about the US. On the straight popular vote, the cities would win, pretty much, and historically, the US doesn't want that. I think it does a pretty good job of splitting the difference between all states equal and all people equal, really.

ita I'm not entirely sure I have this right, but I think that the Electoral was kind of a compromise.

There were some people who wanted a direct vote and then others who wanted the President chosen by Congress or by the States.

I'm pretty sure there were other reasons but I think that is one reason for the Electoral College. There may have been concerns that one politician might be more manipulative and a direct vote would make it easier for said person to go for a power grab and take the Presidency.

I would argue that one cannot underestimate the importance of the individual states and state issues if one wants to understand much of what goes on in the US, past and present.

there is also the fact that our founders didn't trust the unwashed masses to vote for president and that is why we have electors who actually vote for President.

There were some people who wanted a direct vote and then others who wanted the President chosen by Congress or by the States

Based on the long piece I read in The New Yorker yesterday, that's it. The guys who drafted the Constitution really didn't think the average voter (who at the time was only 6% of the population) could be trusted to elect the President.

So one of the early suggestions was to have the President be chosen by Congress or the Supreme Court--but either of those would violate the separation of powers (Executive, Legislature, Courts). So they invented the Electoral College instead, and I must assume that at one point they actually met and voted.

I wonder--did the Electors always vote the way the people in their states wanted? What happened if they didn't?

Crosspost with le n!