85 - 15

It's not just possible - it is what would happen.

America would still have a president, as per our constitution. We would still be the United States as per our constitution.

In NO WAY is that connected to how we elect the president.

 

Well, you make a good point. What we call education today isn’t necessarily education. We use inaccurate terms a lot. Continuing to erroneously use the term POTUS for a dude who would no longer preside over or be elected by a Union of States would go completely unnoticed by most.

 

When discussing our electoral college, it is important to remember that President Trump is not the president of the united people; he is the President of the United States. He is not elected by the people; he is elected by the States. The people vote for their State's electors. It is exactly our electoral college that unites the States. Without it, there would not be, indeed there never would have been, a United States of America.

Our electoral college prevents those in 15% of our country from ruling over those in 85% of our country the way people in densely populated places have always ruled over those in less populated places. Without the electoral college, life in 85% of our country would become feudal.

 

It is not the electoral college that unites the States. In fact, the phrase "united States of America" was in use well before the electoral college was created. While it may be true that the Constitution may not have been ratified had not the electoral college been a part of it (I'm not enough of a historian to know one way or the other), there are plenty of other institutions that "unite the States" … the House of Representatives, the Senate, heck, the federal government in general, not to mention the Constitution.

Oh, and keep in mind that the electoral college does not prevent the "15% from ruling over 85%". The winner take all method of awarding electors does. If all of the States awarded electors proportionally, as they did at a certain time in our history (thank you Google), then the we'd still get close to the 15% ruling the 85% even with the electoral college. The method of awarding electors is currently determined by the individual States.

Also, how do you get to this 15%/85% thing? Are you talking about land area? Why the heck should the amount of space that you have between you and your neighbors have any bearing on who gets elected as President?

 

There is a long history of people in densely populated places oppressing people in lesser populated places. In fact, that history that lead to our adoption of our electoral college is so extensive that it would be impossible to bring you up to speed on it in a post.

 

It's my understanding that the reasons for adopting the electoral college were essentially twofold. First, the founding fathers wanted a buffer between the people and the Presidency. They didn't trust that the people wouldn't be corrupted by a tyrant. In fact, there's no provision in the Constitution that states that the electors selected by a state have to vote for the candidate that the people of that state chose. Secondly, it was a compromise so that states with smaller populations would have an inordinate say in who was President. Note, this has nothing to do with population density, only population size. As I noted in a previous post, if the entire population of Wyoming lived in Cheyenne and the rest of the state was empty then the state would still have the same number of electors. Lastly, as previously noted, there's no Constitutional reason that all of a State's electors must go to the winner of the Presidential election in that state. So, if one of the founding fathers' reasons for the electoral college was to keep dense areas from having too much influence, then they really didn't think it through very well.

 

Those are novel ideas. I've not read anything like that before. During the federalist debates, it was well established that the lesser populated States would not enjoin the treaty between the States that constituted our federal government if their States had a "say in who was President" that is directly linked to their relative populations. They were not about to allow those in 15% of the country rule over those in 85% of the country the way it has been done for centuries in Europe.

A direct democracy will result in feudalism.

The President of the United States is elected by the States. The people in each State vote for their electors.
It is exactly our electoral college that mitigates the ability of those in the more populated States from oppressing those in the lesser populated States the way that people in more populated places have historically oppressed those in lesser populated places.