Blu is correct. I rarely pop in on this thread, but as a history teacher, I cannot simply ignore a blatant misunderstanding of the electoral college. My post here is not about politics or right vs left; it's about historical fact.
Let me start by saying that I fervently oppose the existence of the electoral college. With that said, however, as Blu stated, the electoral college was designed by the framers - Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison being among its strongest supporters, especially Hamilton - to protect the country from the "tyranny of the majority," to use a phrase used multiple times throughout the Federalist Papers. Its purpose is to prevent a demagogue from taking power. Its envisioned purpose was to prevent a demagogue who won the popular vote from automatically taking power - a check on the often emotionally charged rather than rationally charged whims of the people, if you will - but at the end of the day, preventing demagoguery from taking the White House in general is its purpose.
I'm not here to say whether or not Trump is the dangerous demagogue that Hamilton tried to prevent with the electoral college, but to say that the electoral college is corrupt if they elect Secretary Clinton instead of Mr. Trump is factually wrong. The fact of the matter is that neither you nor I nor anyone on this forum have ever once voted for president; we have voted in what is essentially an opinion poll to advise our chosen electors how we want them to vote. It is the 538 electors, not the roughly 240 million American voters, who choose the President of the United States. That is how it was intended to be. That is not corruption. If anything, having the "winner" of the state votes automatically become president would be the corruption as it runs contrary to the electoral system established by our Constitution. Take note of the definition of actual corruption:
the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.
Here's the alternate definition before it in inevitably brought up:
dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
On December 19th, the electors will choose the 45th president as is prescribed by the Constitution. If they choose Secretary Clinton, it will not be corruption. The system will be working exactly as intended, and unless there is proof of some sort of bribe - and remember that burden of proof falls on those who accuse of wrongdoing, not those being accused - there will be nothing dishonest or fraudulent about it. The only ones crying fraud will be those ignorant of the Constitution, a situation I am attempting to remedy. Ignorance is merely the lack of knowledge or understanding, not some character flaw to be ashamed of. We are not nor have we ever been a democracy. If you take note of the wording of the pledge of allegiance as well as Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution, you'll see that we are and always have been a republic - a government ruled by representatives, not the people. We choose our representatives in Congress, but it was never intended that the people actually choose the president; we merely advise those who do choose the president, and they are free to take or ignore our advice depending on what those people feel is best for the country.
None of what I said should be taken as an argument for or against either Trump or Clinton; it is merely a lesson on civics and American government and should be taken as such.
