> > > So will I. Make the electors legally bound to vote the will of the people, and then I'd be fine with it.
> >
> > But then you take away the Elecotrs right to vote their hearts, the bases of American Democracy.
>
> Um. So? Assuming it would not be possible -- which of course it is -- to allow electors to cast regular votes and then, after the votes are tallied, cast elector votes based on the will of the people (which they are among), which scenario would you rather have? (1) Two hundred and whatever million American people don't get votes that count, or (2) a few hundred American people don't get to vote their will. It doesn't take a genius to instantly figure out that (1) is the preferable scenario, and the point is moot, because the solution I gave before, which would allow electors regular votes also, is intuitive, fair, and trivial to implement. Really there shouldn't even BE electors but just a set number of electoral votes for each state that get cast based on the result of the popular vote.
>
> > As near as I can tell, all the Electors vote when everybody else votes, counted with everyone else the first time, but their ballots kept aside. When the whole election is finished, the pull the ballots back out for the electors to see who they voted for.
>
> If that were the case, the electoral votes are truly meaningless, because they are cast before the will of the people is even known. Small wonder less than half the country's population doesn't vote. In fact, if that were the case, I wouldn't bother voting myself.

I think we should just go with the national popular vote. I agree with the name of this thread.

Speed'---'ball