The electoral college has outsurvived it's utility.

[SilasSoule]

Agree or Disagree?

[Jack_Dawson]

1. AGREE

2000 anyone?

[LearnedHand]

2. Cannot answer this with a one-word, up/down answer

The founders of this country understood things about the nature of democracy that we do not. The electoral college served more than as to speed up communication. It prevented "mob rule" voting and other things.

We'd need to know a LOT more about it before we voted it out. I'm loathe to overturn huge parts of the constitutional process willy-nilly.

[misanthrope]

14. Dude, the Founding Fathers...

...didn't descend from Mount Olympus, ya' know. There were plenty of ulterior motives, arrogance and pettiness amongst them. They were only humans, after all.

[LearnedHand]

15. Yup, I know that

But those great minds TOGETHER created an amazingly resilient document that STILL applies more than 200 years after it was adopted.

We just need NOT to vote out something that we don't fully understand. The Electoral College may be protecting us from more than we know, for example. We MUST understand what its intent was before we pitch it out.

[Zidane]

23. It's intent

is fully known. Christ, go take a US history class for the love of god.

Many other nations can directly elect a leader with out an electoral college just fine.

"those great minds TOGETHER"

Again, 3/5th people. No gurantee of the right to vote to anyone other than white, male, land owners.

Get real. The founders were a bunch of rich white people getting together. No non-whites allowed to have a voice. Many of them owned slaves.

If we assumed they were so much more advanced as you do we would non-whites would still be a slave class.

[dumpster_baby]

73. yeah, right, "Great Minds". And then they went home & schtupped the slaves

Look, most of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners and exploiters of indentured servants, and if I could go back in time, I would do whatever I could to punish them with the punishments they so richly deserved.

In case I have not made myself clear: Fuck The Founding Fathers. And Fuck the Constitution (it needs to be amended--it was written by slaveowners for their own benefit).

[NavajoRug]

63. Their first ulterior motive . . .

. . . was to get the U.S. Constitution ratified by all of the original thirteen colonies. The Electoral College system was a compromise that was needed to do just that.

[Zidane]

22. Oh really?

"The founders of this country understood things about the nature of democracy that we do not"

That must be why they decided non-whites should be counted as 3/5ths people in the constitution. Truly gods they wre.

[dumpster_baby]

72. Nasty old Mob! Send out the street sweepers to clear the streets!

Let 'em eat Cake, or just Soylent Green. Filthy mobs....

[fujiyama]

3. Agree

It's undemocratic in the sense that a vote in WY is worth much more than a vote for CA. I think it should be scrapped. It violates the principle of one vote for each person.

[wuushew]

8. Why do we still have a Senate then?

The Presidency good or bad simply splits the difference between the way the House of Reps is chosen and the equal representation afforded the Senate. To repeal the proportionality aspect of the election of the Presidency skews the concept of the Great Compromise from the Constitution.


The problem with the small states is that they consistently vote for idiots because they are social conservative dumb asses. If we were to go back to FDR or earlier we find that rural people voted for Democrats and city folk vote Repuke. Just because that situation has not reversed itself does not mean it can't affect both parties equally.

[Justitia]

4. agree

useful once, but no more

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

5. AGREE

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Disagree.

The only way you can say that is if you don't know what its utility was in the first place.

[wuushew]

7. The proportionality problem could be solved by multiplying the vote

I don't understand why Florida which was decided by only a few hundred votes cast its' entire state populations worth of electoral votes for Bush.

The largest state could serve as a numerical base by which the votes of smaller states multiply their popular votes. Not only would this virtually eliminate the possibility of a tie it would eliminate the large discrepancies between the Electoral vote and the popular vote.

[JDPriestly]

9. The electoral college

is an anachronism. It practically disenfranchises large numbers of people in the populous states. California is the prime example, but it is not alone. I say disenfranchise, because the votes of many many people in populous states don't count at all. They might as well not vote. That each state has only two senators is enough to protect the interests of people in less populous states. If the popular vote once again favors Democrats, and the Republicans win in the electoral college, I think there will be an uproar, to put it mildly.

[ChocolateSaltyBalls]

10. Doesn't each state more or less have a 'popular vote'.........

by which it's electors decide for whom to cast their ballots?

Further, I'm not sure why you say people are disenfranchised or that their vote doesn't count; if a state has 100,000 people, and 75,000 of them favor candidate A, then the other 25,000 people who voted for candidate B weren't disenfranchised, their guy lost, and that states' Electoral College votes go to candidate A.

[liberalpragmatist]

11. Yes, but it denies minority representation

It's a majoritarian system that shuts out minority political groups and makes their votes useless. The popular vote winner is not always the electoral vote winner. Some say that the presidential election should be a federal - state-by-state affair. But, as Yale Law Prof Akhil Reed Amar has pointed out, why shouldn't a national president be elected by the national popular vote? He's not representing a coalition of states - s/he's representating the whole country.

It's anachronistic. If we were writing the constitution today, would we have chosen it as our election system?

And to the charge that it will cause smaller states to be neglected, many counterarguments exist. Firstly, if that is true, then why don't we do the same for the governorships of large states? Secondly, what small state do you know of that ever attracts much attention in a presidential election?

Some say that abolishing the EC will radically change electoral strategies for the worst and concentrate all media and campaigning in the most populous areas. But we already have that. And again, as Amar has pointed out, since the popular vote winner is USUALLY the electoral winner, the strategies shouldn't change too much. It would probably make the race MORE widespread by allowing candidates to campaign wherever there are friendly voters - the Dem candidate could campaign in Salt Lake City knowing that the rest of Utah will go Repub and a Repub could do the same in Southern Illinois.

[ChocolateSaltyBalls]

19. I've read and re-read your post, and pehaps it's because.......

I'm really tired, but I still don't really see the point you are trying to make.

Even if we had a popular vote system, how would that effect minority political groups? Would they get more votes?

As far as smaller states getting more attention if the E.C. was abolished, it would seem to me that they would be completely ignored in favor of the more populous states....why bother spending valuable time and money trying to get 75,000 votes in Montana when you can spend the same currency in California and get 10 million?

I don't want to argue with Professor Amar, but just because the President is representing the entire country, it doesn't mean that everyone voted for him/her, and I don't see how getting the majority of the popular vote (which as you say happens most of the time as things now stand) as opposed to getting the majority of the E.C. has any bearing on things; there would still be a majority and a minority.

Again, I am really tired so perhaps that's why I'm more dense than usual so I have to apologize....perhaps I should bookmark this thread and come back to it tomorrow and see if your argument is any clearer to me.

[Jose Diablo]

46. Here is the trick I think

In an electoral system it is a winner take all on the state basis. At the federal level it restricts to candidates to a max of 2, with a 3rd generally splitting the votes of one or the other primary candidates.

With a electoral system for the executive, we see the magic number of electors as 50% plus one. There can generally be only 2 contestants. Thus we end-up with a 2 party political system.

In a straight popular vote system watch what happens. Each vote counts but how much each vote counts is depended on how many contestants. Take the example to an extreme, imagine 10 contestants. What is needed in this example is 10% plus one vote. The problem then becomes does the executive have a clear majority or can a small 'majority' take power with a non-majority of voters.

What do other countries do when the executive cannot pass their agenda in the Parliament, it forces a new vote for the executive. Because even though they achieved a majority in popular votes, they do not have a clear majority of all votes.

A non-electoral system in the above extreme example rather than being 'more' democratic, allows a small minority to achieve power because the electorate is so split-up.

I think more discussion is needed.

Edit: However in the day to day governance in the popular vote system, there is less 'partisan' politics and more concensus gathering by the executive because if they fail to achieve majority of parliment to pass an agenda, they are out. In this regard, there is a defense against what we have seen these last 3 1/2 years. Again, more thought is needed.

[Cicero]

47. Don't need a constitutional amemdment to get reforms

There are a couple of reforms that can be put in place, and none of them require a constitutional amendment. Based on 2000 census figures, here are the following populations:

U.S.: 281,423,231
CA: 33,871,653
WY: 493,782

California has 55 electors, Wyoming has 3. Therefore, a CA elector represents 615,848 people, while a WY elector represents 164,594. That is a difference factor of 3.74, and it is likely to get worse, not better, down the road.

Now, electors are distributed based on the number of Representatives and Senators a state has. All states have 2 Senators. WY has only 1 Representative while CA has 53. One solution would be to increase the number of Representatives. There is no Constitutional requirement to only have 435 reps. Why not double the number?

Lets say we have 875 reps (double plus 5 to keep the final number odd). What would the electoral distribution be?

With only 435 reps, each rep. equals 646,949 persons. With 875 reps, the number is now 321,626. WY would gain 1 representative, while CA would have their delegation almost double, from 53 to 105. (Based on my admittedly rough calculations.) WY would then have 4 electors, while CA would have 107. In this new formulation, each WY elector would represent 123,445 people, while each CA elector would represent 316,557. This would reduce the difference factor down to 2.56. Better, but not 1 for 1.

To help alleviate that problem would be to push initiatives in the states to change the way they determine electors. In 48 of 50, its by plurality vote, winner-take-all. (2 select based on congressional district, with the remaining 2 based on the state-wide vote.) What needs to be done is to have a state-by-state push to change the rules to use some form of proportional allocation. (I don’t support district allocation, based on how easy it is to gerrymander districts nowadays.) If a candidate only gets 55% of the vote, he should only get 55% of the electors. This would also increase the impact of third party votes.

Let me know what you think.

Later,

[liberalpragmatist]

71. What is the point with the EC of a black vote in Mississippi

It is a majoritarian system that counts out votes depending on where a person lives. Additionally, it hurts political minorities. What's the point of a Democrat in Utah in even voting?

As to the common criticism that only large cities would be paid attention too - that's already the case. What time do candidates spend in small states? Aside from New Hampshire, they're pretty much ALL subverted to the clout of swing states. Abolishing the EC would give candidates the ability to hunt for votes wherever votes would be available. You simply cannot win by just running up huge margins in NY and California. And, like Amar said, if most EC vote winners are the popular vote winners, the strategy wouldn't change too dramatically.

[misanthrope]

16. And just exactly how...

...are those electors bound to honor the votes of those citizens?

Answer: they're not. When it all comes down to the nitty gritty, the electors hold every bit of power for electing the POTUS. Your vote means nothing except by their good graces.

[ChocolateSaltyBalls]

21. Good Graces?

There have been four elections in which the winner lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College; in 1824 because of a tie and the election was turned over to the House of Representatives; in 1876 because Colorado was just admitted into the Union and as such had three electoral votes but no popular vote because the electors were appointed and not elected, in 1888 because the Electoral College worked, and it prevented a candidate from winning because of overwhelming support of one region of the country (the South), and in 2004 because the voting was stopped by the Supreme Court, which is no fault of the Electoral College.

Seems that these evil, Democracy thwarting electors of which you speak have gotten in right more times than not.

[misanthrope]

34. "Right" is a...

...completely subjective term and that doesn't change the fact that electors are not bound by law to honor the popular vote.

[DieboldMustDie]

18. Well yes, but that's just a matter of state law.

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee us the right to vote for president.

[Spinzonner]

12. It may be but it will be virtually impossible to change

because it serves the interests of smaller states and anough of them would be required to pass a Constitutional amendment to change it so as to make it a dead issue.

It might be possible to modify the counting system somewhat to make it less extreme and reduce the probability of the Gore-Bush scenario, but any change is probably similar problematic.

Still, it is interesting to speculate what changes might be possible that doesnt toss it out completely but keep some of the value to smaller states.

Perhaps grouping smaller states into regions that had collectively larger influence without the extemes of small-state equality.

[DieboldMustDie]

13. Well yes, but I still can't imagine getting rid of it.

A constitutional amendment to do so would require ratification by 38 states, and there are probably at least 13 states that see it as being in their interest, whether or not that is really true, to keep it. Requiring a proportional distribution of the electoral votes might be more doable.

Oh yes! Something I'd really like to see is an amendment guaranteeing us the right to vote for president. Currently this is just a matter of state law. :shrug:

[iamtechus]

17. Be careful of what you wish for!

Don't be too quick to throw away your voting privileges! That's correct, I said privileges not rights. We have no explicit right to vote for president. State legislatures have the constitutional right/duty to choose electors but ordinary citizens aren't granted this right by the constitution.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html

[aquart]

20. Disagree. Totally.

How, for instance, would you challenge a massive manipulation of a nationwide popular vote? In 2000, we knew at once that the problem was in Florida, Tennessee, one of the M states.... One big vote means easy opportunity for unstoppable fraud.

How would you deal with state sovereignty issues? Abolish states?

Maybe you want to abolish the constitution and just go for a parliament? House of Lords? Commons?

Try respecting the system before you dismantle it.

[Zidane]

24. Simple

Right now the thugs only need to focus on a handful of key states. These are the ONLY states they need to cheat in to win.

If we had a national vote they would have GREATLY expand their efforts. Probably to at least the majority of the states.

Cheating in one single state (Florida) in which you have your people in state government is a HELL of a lot easier than having to cheat in multiple states - and FAR easier to get away with.

"Maybe you want to abolish the constitution and just go for a parliament? House of Lords? Commons?"

That would be nice too, and would only require a series of amendments not abolishment. Parliamentary systems are nice too.

[SilasSoule]

26. Aquart, I asked the question in order to start a discussion.

and to get a feel of where everyone on DU stands on this. I don't necessarily agree that the electoral College has outserved it's usefulness, and am defintely against any effort or measure to tinker with the constitution for this.

I ask the question because of a winger on another board who is in Colorado and claims that some Democrats there are trying put a referendum or measure on the ballot which would split Colorado's electoral votes into a percentage, so that each candidate who receives votes would take some electoral votes with him/her.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Good point on electoral fraud that is not raised often.

[notbush]

25. Agree!!!!

WHY was there no move to rid ourselves of the electoral college following the 2000 election?
We tend to bitch and moan .....and make no REAL attempt to make REAL change.

[myopic4141]

27. Liberal democracy

Liberal democracy is not a pure democracy; but, a limited democracy. It is the limited or Constitutional democracy that prevents disenfranchisement of minorities via the simple majority. The electoral college is a form of limited democracy which at times allows the minority to rule for a period of time. There is an inherent danger from allowing such a rule as recently witnessed; however, the inherent danger is nowhere near the danger presented by a pure democracy where the minority would be forever out of rule. This is the utility of the electoral college that can never be out survived.

[Zidane]

28. Pure democracy...

Most people call this a "direct democracy" vs a "representative democracy". We have a solid representative democratic republic. If you think a direct election of the president will change that... I suggest you look at just how representative our system is at all other levels.

For one thing we only have two viable candidates anyway. No "minority" rule exists... at least if by "minority" you mean minorities as in race, sexuality, economic class, etc. No chance in hell exists of a minority getting a candidate that *best* represents them. Let me know when a viable candidate that is not rich, white, male, heterosexual, and christian is running.

So trust me - getting a direct election won't screw up the elite majority getting in power anymore than the current system.

[myopic4141]

52. Actually, it will screw up who gets into power even more.

First off, by minority, I mean any group that is continually under 50% representation. Next, the reference is to neither a direct nor indirect (representative) democracy. The reference is to a limited democracy where majority does not have absolute rule. A "Liberal Democracy" is a democracy with limitations placed on the power of the majority whereas an "Illiberal Democracy" is a democracy with no constraints what so ever on the majority's power (both liberal and illiberal could be either direct or indirect). The electoral college falls into the former category (liberal) by balancing the more populated states of the nation with the less populated; thus, placing limitations on the more densely populated states. Most, when discussing the electoral college, do so from the perspective of direct vs indirect and ignore the liberal vs illiberal aspect. Since the electoral college is a combination of both aspects, eliminating one will eliminate the other which is where the problem resides. By eliminating the electoral college, the presidential election will fall to the will of the more populated areas of the nation reducing the less populated to a minority status. Presidential elections would move from fixed boundaries of states to concentric circles around large metropolitan areas (which is almost where we are now; but, limited to a state by state basis).
As to an elite majority getting into power, I would refer to Shrubby's acquisition of the presidency as neither.

[NightTrain]

29. Get rid of the Electoral College...now!

Hey, we've only had the direct election of senators since 1912.

[Zynx]

30. Agree entirely.

I think we should actually go to a parliamentary democracy like Europe where the president(who would become prime minister) is basically another member of Congress and is less of a mystical figure.

[lazarus]

60. actually

in a Parliamentary system, we'd still have a President. The Speaker of the House would be elevated to Prime Minister. Frist would have a lot more power.

The President is largely a ceremonial role in this sort of system (think of France). A "king" who's elected every 4 years, to go cut ribbons and set the tone, while the PM does all the legislative work.

One nice thing about the Parliamentary system is the accountability factor. One can no longer say "those people in Congress wouldn't let me do what I want." The party in charge is in charge.

OTOH, I kind of like the checks and balances we have now. Yeah, they're getting out of whack, but we can fix them up fairly easily.

[bushwakker]

31. It's useful to the GOP so it will remain*

[ronatchig]

32. disagree but

with a caveat. I have read thru everyones ideas in this thread and proportionality has not been mentioned so I thought I would add it to the mix.
My idea of modernizing the electoral college is modify it so that winner in each state does not take all. If the leading candidate gets 58% of the popular vote then he/she gets 58% of electoral votes losers get their prospective percentages too. Thus the election is popular while retaining the rein on the the larger states.
This I think would empower more people and reflect the will of the people better IMHO.

[Mike Daniels]

33. It's funny that if the situation were reversed -

if Gore had won the electoral and Bush the popular vote that I imagine that no-one here would care or be calling for the dismantling of the electoral college. Of course, the flip would apply to places like FR and Lucianne.com in regards to their reaction if Bush had won the popular but not electorial.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Bridget Burke]

35. The Bush campaign was ready....

If Bush had won the popular vote but Gore got the electoral majority, the Republicans were planning a campaign to undermine the results.

Let us also remember that Bush didn't even get his electoral majority honestly. If Florida had been fully, legally counted, Gore would have won both the popular & electoral contests.

[BGrier]

39. It'd Be Gone Already

If the situation were reversed the red states would be all for getting rid of the electoral college. I'm sure there would have been moves in Congress to do so. Don't believe it? Which party impeached over a lie about a bj?

[doubleplusgood]

36. it is mathematically possible

...for a presidential candidate to win the popular vote by TENS OF MILLIONS of votes, and yet not "prevail" thanks to the Electoral College. It is incredible that anyone can still support this system.

A direct, popular vote with instant runoff voting would be the best replacement.

[NavajoRug]

67. Under a popular vote, it's also mathematically possible . . .

. . . for a presidential candidate to win without getting a single vote west of the Mississippi River.

How long do you think that would go on before this country was involved in another civil war?

[doubleplusgood]

76. well, we had a Civil War WITH the electoral college

Yes, it IS mathematically possible to win with no votes west of the Missippi. It is also mathematically possible for someone to win the Electoral College with 25 or so votes total across the nation (win states by 1-0) while the opponent gets 50 million votes in other states. Possible, but not likely. It is far more likely that the popular vote winner can win by millions of votes & still not "prevail".

[truthspeaker]

37. Agree. We need direct popular vote for the president.

[3rdParty]

38. How about a modified Electoral College vote???

Have each congressional district act as a separate entity. Instead of ALL the electorial votes for a state going to 1 candidate, he would get 1 vote for each congressional district that he had won. This would be more fair.

[mrboba1]

42. This would be nice in theory

but the gerrymandering of the districts would become absolutely ruthless. If you thought it was bad now, wait until you see what would happen then...

[Yupster]

54. Also if you think some states get pounded

with neverendng campaigning because they're targetted states, wait until iy's targetted by districts. Because if gerrymandering, you could have 15 congressional districts, and 14 of them are gerrymandered to one side or the other, and the entire resources of each campaign would go into that 15th district.

[doubleplusgood]

50. still has problems

Consider a 3-candidate national race:

- Candidate 1 wins 50% of congressional districts & gets 30% of vote nationally

- Candidate 2 wins 50% of congressional districts & gets 30% of vote nationally

- Candidate 3 wins no congressional districts, but gets 40% of vote nationally.

So, the candidate with the most votes loses (again)...this sucks big-time. We need to get away from 1-geographic area, 1-vote mentalities.

(Note: Something like this happened in one of the strike-shortend baseball seasons back in the 80's or 90's. The team with the best record through the season (Cincinatti ?) didn't make the playoffs; instead, they took the winners of the first & second "halves" of the season).

[Yupster]

55. Kind of what happened to Stephen Douglas in 1860

He came in second to Lincoln in the north and second to Breckinridge in the south and came in fourth in electoral votes with a whopping 12, behind Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. Brings up another issue, it's been too long since they expanded the House

That would go a long way towards making our government more responsive to the will of the people.

[NavajoRug]

62. That's a good idea -- it's how a couple of states already work . . .

The candidate that wins Maine (I think), for example, gets two electoral votes for the entire state (for the two senators) and one electoral vote for each congressional district within the state.

It's rare for Maine to split its electoral votes, though (if it ever has).

Something to keep in mind here is that this will probably not help the Democrats very much. The number of Congressional districts in Republican states that vote for Democratic candidates will more than likely be offset by the number of Republican districts in places like California, Pennsylvania and New York that vote for Republican candidates.

[SilasSoule]

75. Interesting Idea.

[pmbryant]

40. Yes, by about 200 years

It's rather ridiculous that the person who gets the most votes may not win in some cases because of the geographical distribution of votes.

States don't elect governors that way; cities don't elect mayors that way. No true democracy should elect anyone that way.

--Peter

[jpgray]

41. Get rid of the EC, you may as well get rid of the Senate

If the premise is that each vote should count the same, it makes zero sense to give a citizen of North Dakota more legislative prowess in the Senate than a citizen of California.

[truthspeaker]

43. We're talking about electing the chief executive, not the legislature

[jpgray]

44. Well, good luck getting the senators of small states to vote for that (nt)

[Columbia]

45. Doesn't matter

The EC is here to stay.

[Bill McBlueState]

48. some numbers

http://daisy.astro.umass.edu/~wfischer/elec.html

The above link is to a table comparing the percentage of the US population living in a state and the percentage of electoral votes it has.

You can see just how much the people living in California, Texas, and New York get screwed, and how good Rhode Island and Wyoming have it.

Why people should be disenfranchised because they live in a particular state is beyond me. As one poster put it, the president rules a nation of people, not a coalition of states.

[NavajoRug]

66. That last statement was absolutely incorrect . . .

As one poster put it, the president rules a nation of people, not a coalition of states.

If you read the U.S. Constitution, you'll see that "a coalition of states" is precisely what this country is supposed to be. Even the process of amending the Constitution is based on this simple fact.

[Bill McBlueState]

68. in practice, it's not a coalition of states

The concept of states rights is much more limited than the founders intended it to be. You can see that change most clearly in the fourteenth amendment.

Whatever was said 220 years ago about a coalition of states, the country has evolved away from that. People generally think of themselves as Americans first, and as residents of their particular state second.

Making the presidential vote a true national election, decided by the popular vote, obviously requires a constitutional amendment. But that amendment would be in the spirit of the direction the country has taken.

[rinsd]

49. Depends....

What was its previous utility?

If it was to preserve the balance between small and large population states, then how has that changed?

[Yupster]

56. It was to give the power of choosing the president

to the states, and not to the people.

The Constitution gives the electors the power to elect the president.

The Constitution says the electors are chosen by the state legislatures by whatever means they consider correct.

The Constitution does not assume that there will even be a popular vote for president.

The states pick the electors.

The electors pick the president.

The people need not be involved at all.

[Strawman]

51. The people who benefit from the EC control the mechanisms to get rid of it

No small state reps or senators will vote for a constitutional amendment to directly elect the President or reform the electoral college. And there's no way that small state legislatures will vote for such an amendment. Even Howard Dean probably would be opposed because nobody running for President would ever bother campaign in his state again. I just can't imagine how it would actually happen short of some sort of secession threat by large states and I don't see that happening either.

I'm not sure what the magical threshold of poverty is before red staters stop voting for Republicans, but I get the feeling we'll cross that threshold long before ever see Electoral College reform. Even if they were to lose once because of the EC (hard to imagine how), the Republicans would be fools to tamper with the best thing they have going. They certainly aren't going to do it just because it is fair.

In a perfect world, I support the direct election of the President, but it's a moot point. It will never happen. It's magical thinking and the energy spent on it should be spent developing a winning red state strategy instead.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. Exactly, as a Montanan, I would never support abolishing the EC

Who's gonna disenfranchise themself?

[BloodyWilliam]

53. Agree

The electoral college has developed all of the faults of a popular vote with none of the democratic benefits. Instead of the polarization and appeal to more populous areas in campaigning, campaigning is focused on "swing" states in which the votes of a few hundred or a few thousand can determine an election. Voters in heavily partisan states have little or no voice either way, while voters in swing states have enormously weighted votes.

[NavajoRug]

61. STRONGLY DISAGREE

Eliminating the electoral college will completely turn our political system upside down, and will end up disenfranchising far more voters than the current system does.

Even places like California and Texas will never see any presidential candidates, because every president will be elected by that portion of the U.S. population that lives within 500 miles of Columbus, Ohio.

[ramapo]

64. I'll echo "Doesn't Matter"

It's not going to be changed in many lifetimes if ever

[vivalarev]

65. AMEN

[apnu]

69. AGREE!!!!

Instant run-off voting!

[dumpster_baby]

70. The College is still used for exactly what it was originally meant for

To keep poor folks in their place, and to keep proper, god-fearing property owners on top of society, where they belong.


/sarcasm

[Newerdemthanyou]

74. Disagree

You leftists would like nothing more than to destroy America.