[grania]

You would trust an obscure process that hasn't been use for ages (if ever) wouldn't be manipulated to get an unfair result? Heck, we're having trouble with wannabees who wanted to be President who refuse to honor a pledge they made, with delegates who don't think they should have to vote the will of those they promised to represent, with ex-Presidents who don't give a damn about how people voted.

I'm not at all confused about the process.....or the potential for mischief.

[stremba]

With respect, you are confused. EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since John Quincy Adams has been elected by the “secretive” process you have expressed such concern about. Every one, good and bad, Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Ike, Fdr, both Bushes, Lincoln, Buchanon, all of them and more have been elected by the Electoral College because that’s the primary mechanism given by the Constitution for electing Presidents and it hasn’t failed in almost two centuries. The closest it came to fwiling was 1876 when Hayes arguably was able to steal the election from Tilden because several states in the South submitted competing electoral votes, one set for each candidate. After a lot of political dealing, though the EC still ended up deciding the election.

I can see the concern about neither candidate gaining a majority of EC votes and throwing the election to Congress. That could tirn into a mess, but that’s where your concern should lie then, not with the system we’ve used without fail for almost two humdred years