Regarding our status as a Republic,and using that fact to justify the existence of the Electoral College...

We are indeed governed by elected officials,and not popular referendum.To organize a plebiscite on every aspect of new law and policy would be a practical impossibility,so instead we elect officials whose views,we believe,will most likely represent our own. The Congress is the closest institution to truly representing the popular will present in each state of the union.The Senate is a less representative body,being primarily a concession by the populists among the Founders to the less populous states,who felt that their regional issues would be trampled on by the will of the majority.The members of these two bodies are elected by popular vote,and derive their power,therefore,directly from the will of the people.Our government does allow for constitutional and legal interpretation outside the bounds of the electoral process,through the creation of the Judiciary Branch,and this is rightly the only high govern,mental entity that should exist (except in certain extraordinary circumstances) beyond the direct control and authority of the people.

Now,in this context,how bizarre that the nation's chief elected official should be not granted his position by popular will,but by the independent vote of appointed electors.The process does not reflect the true sentiments of the majority of voters,is ultimately subject to the whim of the electors, and does not reflect the percentage of voters who may turn out in a particular state (if New York only turns out 25% of its voters,the majority voting for candidate A,and Texas turns out 80% of its voters,the majority voting for candidate B,and the total vote in NY is 3 million, while 6 million voted in Texas, Candidate A derives the full 36 electoral votes of NY,while B receives only 29 electoral votes,though he has garnered twice the popular votes).The electoral college does not,in fact,embody any principle of a representative republic,but instead is a constitutional hold-over from an era where states rights and distrust of the people's will were the motivating factors. It should be abolished.

Now if someone has a logical counterpoint to this argument I welcome it,but I have yet to hear one.If you need until tomorrow afternoon so that you can check with Rush,I understand.