Electoral College

There is a reason to have an electoral college ... "direct" elections allow the possibility of a monstrous election result.

The Blue and Red candidates are equally unappealing. They are both weak offerings and have no resounding mandate from their Sides.

Someone popular and audacious runs an inexpensive "sleeper" campaign, using the Internet, and on election day former "swing" voters, and dissatisfied Reds and Blues, write in ... Michael Moore. Or Tom Selleck. Many will vote that way merely as a protest, and yet the audacious, relatively popular candidate is elected.

I do not know if the German Republic had direct elections or not. I do know that Hitler was elected, probably popularly.

"Pure" democracy, particularly under the dominion of a semi-literate and tremendously apathetic (and lazy) citizenry is a terrifying idea. People who don't know the difference between "then" and "than" will see who's the Most Beautiful Woman In America according to the cover of People magazine, and use Jennifer Connelly as a "middle finger" in the face of boring old white men.

Or maybe Chris Rock?

Reforming the electoral college is a better remedy than dismissing it altogether. Even though direct elections might motivate more people to participate, it does not improve the quality of the voter, or of the candidates.