Is it time to scrap the Electoral College?

The US was never meant to operate that way. It was intended that the "states" be "united" by a single government, but that they hold the right to make their own laws and govern their own citizens.

The idea that we operate through a truly democratic process is entirely false. Our country has a democratic republic government structure (where we chose our representatives through a democratic process and our right are protected by the constitution. THIS WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. They knew the dangers associated with a truly democratic government...where the tyranny of the majority has the power to control all people in the minority.

 Read the Federalist Papers, written by our founders. They explain the intelligence and absolute brilliance that went into forming the government of our country. They always intended that the states have more power in deciding their own fate that one massive government that would oversee the entire nation.  

EXACTLY!

I agree with you....

One thing I know that I think is frustrating is that the Majority of the Dems in California are in San Francisco and LA. Because of the pure numbers of people that live there goes the state. The rest of the counties in the state of California are Reps. Have you noticed there are no visits by the candidates here because they think we are a given state to the dems. You can see this if you go to the California state site. I do not how would this help in this issue but I would rather have pure numbers and every vote counts compared just winning a state. Now that we are going towards computers we can count them all fast. But in this computer age of voting there needs to be on line site to vote and the booths are terminals to the online voting.

I know- Let's take the blue states out of the Union! All that's left is a rural, third-world country that can't read or write, is governed by fear, hatred and intolerance, and is easily manipulated by people in power through the tool of religion.

That's what is happening now, the GOP is being pushed back to what it truly is at its core: a racist, hate-mongering, rural, inbred, paranoid collection of hillbillys & rednecks that yes, CLING TO THEIR GUNS & RELIGION CAUSE THAT'S ALL THEY GOT LEFT.

In a world that is rapidly leaving them behind, they would prefer to stay in their pre-Civil War Era mentality of "The White Man is God." As a white man voting for Obama, it is time to change once and for all, to throw off the shackels of the Good 'ol Boy network that is the Party of David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan, of the military-industrial complex that is the real reason behind the Iraq Wars, Vietnam, Afganistan, so that the very few profit at the deaths of the common.

Yes, America, it is time to break up the world's biggest monopoly, the US Federal Government, and it starts with the Electoral College, and defeating McShame and his Lipstick Pig. Mark my words, if this doesn't happen, just look to the French Revolution of what angry citizens do to their leaders.

PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS, GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THEIR PEOPLE.

Exactly... Being a Rep and knowing your state is predominantly Dem, like Ca. The electoral college kinda discourages you from voting, because whats the point? You are hideously outnumbered there. But, a nationwide popular vote would encourage you to participate more in the election because every vote would count. I live in TX and the same goes for Austin, where many Dems won't even bother voting because the rest of the state is so glowingly "red", as well as many Reps because they know they have the state cornered. A popular vote would prevent the country from being so divided by state boundaries and may eventually work to add more significance to third parties, and less importance to special interest groups. it would also force candidates to give attention in their campaigns to the entire country, not just "battleground" states. It would be a win-win all the way around. Developing the technology to accurately count the votes and prevent voter fraud would be a cinch in this day and age.

just remember this....if we ever go to popular vote...I would DEMAND that some form of official/bio ID be given to all LEGAL registered voters. This way there can be NO fraud. and I know this will piss off the "big brother" conspiritists....too bad...it's time we became one nation.....every other nation in the world I believe REQUIRES their citizens to carry ID with them at all time....it's time we stop being so arrogant....if you don't want to carry ID...I think you've got something to hide....ok..I'll get off my soapbox now....oh and screw the blue and red....

 "PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENTS, GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THEIR PEOPLE."

You sir are preaching contrary to the republican doctrine....in other words socialist anarchy!....just kidding sir...Bravo for your stones!

That goes both ways.  I'm a democrat in one of the reddest (is that a word? it is now!) states in the nation.  I vote anyway, but it is discouraging and frustrating to know that my vote just disappears as soon as I cast it because of the electoral college.

if the electoral college is to ever be eliminated in favor of popular vote then the priority should first be to insure EVERY vote is legal and every voter is LEGAL.  State Powers has it right when he talks about the Federalists papers - everyone should read it.

You are sooo right.  Also, whaat happened to "of the People, by the people and for the people".  Never see it in print anymore do we.  Another thing is how many times are urged to get out and vote...every single vote counts!!  Excuuuse  me!  I don't think so!

Go Bama!!!

I completely agree.

Ed from California:

And your actual answer to the question was...?

Well Ken, we are not a democracy.  We are a representative republic or maybe you didn't go to school when they taught about our founding of this nation and what it means to be an American.  Abolishing the Electoral College will mean California, NY, NJ, FL, PA, TX, OH, ILL, and Washington will elect our national president.  The establishment liberal media are the one focusing on Red or Blue.  It is obvious that you were for Al Gore and more than likely an Obamaniac.  Well you might get what you want, unless you are one of those who don't pay any income taxes you are screwed along with the rest of us if Obama wins. 

's comments are precisely why we need to keep the electoral system.  The "I know better than you" attitude is non-sense.  Now, keep in mind, as a full-on independent in Chicago, I share your same opinions on the South, and its uneducated and archaic aspects.  HOWEVER, I'm not prepared to remove their right to vote as is or limit their importance to our nation just because we, the educated, BELIEVE their values are wrong.  The system we have has gotten us to where we are, making us the only remaining super power, the true leader of this planet, that offers like no where else on this planet true freedom to its people.  Our system has gotten us here, and I'm quite fine with letting it take us into the future.

As to your entire argument of conspiracy non-sense... These same people that you bash are the ones that overwhelmingly volunteer to be soldiers and are far more patriotic than us in the North that would claim to be so far advanced beyond them.  Are you going to defend this nation?  Do you have an American flag at your home?  I'm sure you don't.  Because, like so many people in the North, as in Chicago, you don't stand for anything.  You like to discuss ridding our nation of these problems, but you are all talk.  Freedom and a nation are formed on the strength of its people and their dedication to fight for its ideals, not on the cheap talk of the so called educated.  People like you are are allowed to exist and speak freely exactly because these people, and those that came before them, stood up and chose to fight.  If it weren't for people like this, there would have been no Revolution, no Civil War, etc. So, rather than thinking you are some superior intellect or that your ideals are so much better, instead, why don't you have some appreciation for those that actually allow you to express yourself so freely.  You are a product of their sacrifice and dedication to this country.  And, instead of being grateful, as you should be, you choose to bash those that would die for your rights.  Are you like those scum bags who spit on our soldiers when they came back from Vietnam?  Rather than having any real perspective or a calm head showing your superior intellect, perhaps you are like them, clueless monkeys who like to hear themselves talk. 

You want the world to be a better place, then we need a government that works hard for all its people, not one that intentionally excludes a portion of it because they aren't in vogue with urban hubs.  Our system, as it stands, achieves this goal, and has lead to many of the improvements we have seen over time.  Just look at California, how it pushes many alternative energy policies which are eventually copied by the rest of the nation as they learn the lessons.  The states, and their existance, is a benefit to us all.   It should stay just like it is.

Why would I want California, New York and Florida be responsible for electing a president.. it would make smaller states inconsequencial.. Might as well take our senator's and congressmen along too...  for we would have no meaning to the direction of the country, no input into the election process, basically no value.. and all the pork would go the big population states..   Guess that would make some Pigs more equal than others.

I don't think it would make any difference to have it or not have it. This system has worked for those running for some time. If we did change it. Then there would be those saying our candidate won because he/she had more votes. Others would say that those voting that way were only voting that way because they like that candidate as a person (Ala Palin) and not on the issues. So it is good for some, but not for others. Either way the loser would contest the system used at the time.

Go back to the Primaries. Same question. Popular vote or Delegates. HRC in the end wanted the use the popular vote (even though agreeing to the other at the beginning of the campaign). In both cases, Obama won when concentrating on the Delegates as was the system in use at the time. Now Obama is winning because he did not again  go for the popularity  vote (although he has been accused of being a Celebrity) and going for the Electoral Vote. Now all want a change in the system. Why was this not brought up prior to either the Primaries or the General Election? Because the other side did not think they would have a problem beating the young upstart candidate from IL, but he outsmarted the both, by sticking to the rules in use at the time. Brilliant strategist both times. And I would venture to say, if the Popular vote was in play at the time, Obama would have abided by it and went that route and come up with a plan to win it all on popularity. After all, according to McCain he is of Rock Star Quality. So it is a no brainer.

Again, it is only a system. The winner likes it and the loser thinks it should be changed. A system is just that, a system. Plan accordingly and it will work in your favor. If not, you are a loser. END OF STORY!!!

Obama/Biden 2008 and Beyond

Whoknew, It doesn't matter if we went by the Electoral College Vote or the Popular Vote as far as stopping voter fraud.  I am not near as concerned as a few people that are voting that shouldn't be as I am the people that are manipulating the results of the vote as we saw in Florida.  There was no way that Bush actually won that election and if the state would have been ran by Democrats or Independents history would be dramatically different.

BRowe, you might want to quite drinking the coolaid the democrats have been passing around the party and do a little research into history.  If you did you might realize that Abraham Lincoln who you may or may not know was kinda big on the whole anti-slavery thing and just happened to be republican too.  The good ol' boys in the south who got the whole kkk thing going just happened to control the democratic party for quite sometime as well. 

And just so you don't jump to any conclusions I would like you to know that I am a registered Libertarian and have been for over 8years. Can't say that I cling to religion( never been to a church other than for a wedding)  But I will say that I cling to the 2nd amendment just as strongly as the 1st, and all the others.  For the simple fact that our forefathers didn't recieve the rights and freedoms we value today by simply standing up and demanding them from the king of england, they had to fight to earn them. And there may come a time when we have to fight to keep them

You are dead on.....A good friend of mine went to Florida, along with about 2,000 others to sort out the election in 2000.  He said that the state patrol had blocked highways so that a lot of people in the poorer areas could not get to the polls.  Also, my daughter worked in the Post Office in Florida at the time, and found a large, cloth bag of uncounted votes about three weeks AFTER the election.  Someone had pitched it behind a door in the restroom. That election was was rigged and the Supreme Court decided the presidential race.  That's not democracy!!!!  Now that Jeb Bush isn't the gov. anymore, Barack may have a chance in Florida. 

Without the electoral college than just  California and New York can determine the outcome of the elections (not enough people in the middle states).

Read the reasoning behind it before you speak, gosh did you all  miss all your civic classes! The presidency is more then a popularity contest. You must live in a big state or you would not feel that way. If Mccain wins or Hussein wins it won't be because of the Electorial College, but leave the constitution alone!

We have never "claimed to be a true democracy".  We are a Republic.  Think things are bad now, can you imagine having millions and millions of true idiots voting on their television sets over every issue that congress considers.  That is what would be a "true democracy".  Go back to fifth grade and retake American History.

We need to abolish the Electoral Votes.  When our forefathers  put this idea into the Constitution, they did not have the machines to count the popular votes, we have these now.    The entire thing needs a Constitutional Amendment by Congress making it election solely based on the popular vote.  I don't believe that two or three states should choose who is our president because they have more electoral votes.  Talking about disinfranchising the voters.  It would seem that Florida, California and a few northern states have more electoral votes than every body else, so in essence, these states actually decide who wins the election.  EVERY vote should count, and all votes counted should equal who got the popular vote and that person should be the president.  This is the fair solution to the problem...that the majority of the people voted for this person...and that is Democracy.

i totally agree with that

The republicans stonewall the idea of doing away with the electoral college because it would limit the ability of rural red states to have a impact on the elections.  Every state is now guaranteed at least 3 electoral votes.  If popular votes counted then these states would lose impact.  As the electoral College is based on the number of reps in the house then I believe that if the electoral College is going to stay that it should be required to vote as per the percentage of popular vote per district.  And if a Electoral representative throws in a blank ballot or casts a vote for a candidate that did not receive the popular vote they should be prosecuted for vote fraud!

I guess that BRowe thinks that anyone to the right is an uneducated moron.  That is a real arguement?

The Electoral College prevents that kind of mentality from carrying the day.  Read some of the reasons behind the College and the number of Reps.  The Founders wanted and needed the newer states and commonwealths to join the Union.  The Continental States didn't work because nothing got done.  Once there was a way to prevent the larger states from dominating the politics, then the smaller states knew that they had a reason to join in and form the present system.

If you want New York and California to determine the outcome of the Presidential Elections time after time, look for a major change if an Amendment to the Constitution ever passed.

If the electoral college didn't exist there would always be a democrat elected, is that the idea? Populations are larger on the coasts where the dimwits live. Is you a college grad, or are you just against fairness?

Yes, we should abolish it. This is what should happen - if you win the popular vote in a state then you get ONE vote from that state. That way every state is equal. The person with the most state-votes at the end wins. It's that simple - One vote per state.

"Yes, we should abolish it. This is what should happen - if you win the popular vote in a state then you get ONE vote from that state. That way every state is equal. The person with the most state-votes at the end wins. It's that simple - One vote per state."

Problem with this is balance.  In your plan Rhode Island with One million people would have the same voting power as California's 36 million.  That means if these two states vote against each other Rhode Islands One million people just canceled out 36 million other people.

Would you be in favor of a popular vote for abortion rights or segregation?  Why is the presidency different?  The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent teh tyranny of the majority and is working how the founding fathers intended.

Dead on TonyD

Tony, if the popular vote voted for abortion rights then that is democratic, the same could be said for such a vote on segregation.  However, this discussion does not concern changes in voting for laws or amendments, that would still be the responsibility of the legislative and executive branches of the federal and local governments. 

This only concerns the vote for our president, which perhaps is a citizens single most important voting responsibility, and I for one believe my vote should leave me and impact the presidential choice directly, not get stopped somewhere along the line for some smaller body to digest and recast.  I just want the democracy that I grew up thinking we had not some pseudo, watered down version.

Read the reasoning behind it before you speak, gosh did you all  miss all your civic classes! The presidency is more then a popularity contest. You must live in a big state or you would not feel that way. If Mccain wins or Hussein wins it won't be because of the Electorial College, but leave the constitution alone!

spohawk...what are you trying to imply...someone should not win because of their name?...that's racist, ignorant, and down right stupid...you must have been drinking the "red" kool aid for a very long time....hey....I guess you weren't around for the Jim Jones kool aid huh?

Tony, if the popular vote voted for abortion rights then that is democratic, the same could be said for such a vote on segregation.  However, this discussion does not concern changes in voting for laws or amendments, that would still be the responsibility of the legislative and executive branches of the federal and local governments. 

This only concerns the vote for our president, which perhaps is a citizens single most important voting responsibility, and I for one believe my vote should leave me and impact the presidential choice directly, not get stopped somewhere along the line for some smaller body to digest and recast.  I just want the democracy that I grew up thinking we had not some pseudo, watered down version.

Well see now that is your problem we are NOT a democracy.  What you people  are talking about is dissolving states rights.....

what you are saying makes no sense.  If the Republican gets the most vote, then yes they would vote for the Republican...where is the problem. reread your comments

 the electors do vote for who gets the most votes in their state.  electoral college was set up to insure that all regions of the country were heard, not just the majority cities...and yet, protect the popular vote by awarding more electors to the states with the larger populations.

I have never heard of an instance, in modern history, where the electorial college didn't vote according to the popular vote of their state. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't go over well with the people.

Wouldn’t it be cool that an election could be decided by one Voter a guy name CHAD maybe in Florida?

Why allow it to possibly happen ? Eliminate the chance.....POPULAR VOTE SHOULD RULE PEROID!

LOL Ed

If I remember correctly the last time it happened was in the 1950's.  That said, it can still happen but it is even more ridiculous that voters vote 50.0001% for a candidate and he/she gets all the votes.  Replace the college with a popular vote.

er where you not around in 2000, If you remember Gore won the Popular Vote and Bush stole the presidency with the help of the supreme court..

Er, I think if you Look at 2000 when gore had the popular vote and bush stole the presidancy with the help of the supreme court...

Yes, my son cried in 2000 (he was eight) and he has never seen politics the same.  He didn't see it as fair then and he still doesn't, but until we change it, we can't say that all men/women are crated equal.

Didi....I think I got what you said...but I think you said it wrong...lol

Think about this.!!!! In using the Electoral Vote system ,it is in essence voting for the candidate by popular vote. Those in any particular State all go to the polls to vote. The one with the most votes(popular vote) gets the Electoral Votes alloted to that State by representation by population. So again, I do not see what has to be changed. It really is a combination of both Electoral and Popular Vote. Do you see it now?

Obama/Biden 2008 and Beyond   Hooo Rah!!

Ralph the problem is that some states have more weight than others ex. California as opposed to  Alabama. Also if you live in a state that always goes one way ex. ILL always goes blue, so if you're a republican then there is no real point for you to vote because you are severely outnumbered. Same with Texas, the red outnumbers the blue, so what's the point? Changing the Electoral college and going with the popular vote and/or one EC vote per state would make sure everyone's vote is counted equally.

How do you protect the rights of 5% of the population in a state like NY where 95% of the people live in NYC ?  Does that sound right ?  NY will be blue simply because the majority of the state is Dem and they all pretty much live in NYC.  So who cares what the rest of NYC thinks.  Electoral college works the way it was intended.  Like it or not it protects the rest of the country from California and the North East Coast States.

kenx....are you saying that because of some mass hysteria....or mass hypnosis that all NY voters will vote the same?....I've been there...nah....aaaain't gonna happen...new yorkers are way too opinionated to band wagon their votes...oh...wait...I forgot about the cross dresser julliani...

Isn't that the whole concept of democracy that the will of the majority gets elected? Why should those in smaller states be given a larger say just because it defeats their chances of getting elected? I am really trying to understand your reasoning but it eludes me.

Actually, the framers of the Constitution had no intention of letting 'the people' choose the President. The Electoral College was to be appointed by the State Legislature. Each elector had two votes, equal in weight. The idea was that the Electoral College would send a pool of reasonable candidates to Congress and the House of Representatives would choose the President. There was never an intention of letting the President being chosen directly by voters.

States receive one Elector for every representative in Congress, so each state has a minimum of three votes(one Representative and two Senators). One proposed solution has been for each Congressional district to give its vote to the candidate with the majority of that district's voters and give the last two votes apportioned by the overall popular vote in the state.

I live in MI, all votes would then be counted(hopefully ALL) and my vote could join with those in any other state or side or whatever you'd call it and then we'd see who the Am. people really want. That way maybe what the voters want would count not just a few big states. And MI has quite a few el. votes so not everyone feels like you thought about big states. We'd just be people voting. Might be a bit hard on the candidates, but that goes with the job. This time, as in recent times, let's hope ALL people who want and can vote do and THE VOTES ARE COUNTED!!! THAT"S THE CHALLENGE TODAY!!!! STOP the manipulation of other people's voice. Run a LEGAL precinct EVRYWHERE!!! Have some integrity with the job you've been given. I've set on election boards before, YOU have an obligation, do your job. The board has legal obligations or they should GO TO JAIL.

MDrn.....that's ok for primaries....but it isn't ok for the actual presidential election....1 citizen....1 vote! Trash the EC now!

Some fun history facts:
In November of 1876 Republican candidate Rutherford B Hayes won the presidential election with 185 electorial votes to Democratic candidate Samuel J. Tilden's 184.  TIlden had recieved 51% of the nation's popular vote where Hayes only recieved 48%.
November 1888, Republican candidate Benhamin Harrison wins the presidential election with 233 electorial votes to Democratic candidate Grover Gleveland's 168.  Cleveland had recieved 48.6% of the nation's popular vote where Harrison only recieved 47.9%.
December 2000, Republican candidate George W. Bush wins the presidential election with 271 electorial votes to Democratic candidate Al GOre's 266.  Gore had recieved 48.39% of the nation's popular vote where Bush only recieved 47.88%.
Three instances in national history where the candidates the people choose were not the men selected to be in the White House.  The first two times, the man selected wasn't re-elected, and a member of the opposing political party was choosen.  This last time, the man in the White House is suffering from such low approval numbers that it will most likely cost his party the election.
Three instances showing the weaknss in the Electorial College.  It might have worked 52 times in our nation's history, but three times it has failed us and put the wrong man into the driving seat of our country.

Well, if each vote counts and Democrats win each time, maybe... just MAYBE there are more democrats in this country and we can do away with the republican party!!!

I find that an interesting comment.  I live in a state where I generally vote Democrat but the state goes Republican.  I also live in a rural community, not a highly populated area.  Does that mean my vote shouldn't count like now.  When the electoral college began it was because there was no way to get information out in a timely manner and the counts would take forever.  Today there is no reason we shouldn't respect one person, one vote.  The other hole in your statement is that most of the Presidents both Democrat and Republican, have won both the electoral college and the popular vote

you're and idiot.

I disagree with this, and I grew up on a farm in rural Kansas. If a majority of the population lives on the coast then that's where they live. They have more of say in the Presidental election anyway, because they have more congressman and therefor more EV's. More importantly, its not as important what party holds the White House as much as who controls congress. That's why the founding fathers set up three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) to help ensure equal representation and help limit one party control.

I did not know that thanks for the insite

It's not just people on the coasts that want to scrap the electoral college. I live in a heavily Republican state in the West, and since I don't want to vote Republican, I might as well NOT vote at all. Minorities have no voice at all, when a state is slated to be heavily Republican or Democrat. I think, it would make more sense, if all the states did it like Maine and Nebraska, and allocate the votes on a percentage basis to the electors. That way, small states would still get the representation they need, but minority votes would count in these states as well. I think at least in the West, a lot more people would vote!

If it is Majority wins rule then would the Coast cities always dictate to the center of the country which candidate wins? Probably

So how do we make it fair for all. Maybe each state gets one vote and whom ever gets Majority wins. But how would that be different than today? I have learned something on this site today…It is not an EZ one…

Deb....so what you're saying is that you have NO CONFIDENCE in the people of america?...or are you saying that there are more democrats than republicans?....if you're saying that...why do you think that is?...and if that were true...why have the republicans EVER been in office?....
The EC should have been done away with years ago....this will make the parties either work harder...or perish...personally the latter would suit me fine...both of the parties!
I personally think that ANYONE who votes for a candidate simply based on party affiliation is an idiot and doesn't deserve the privilege/right to vote!

Deb you're also missing the fact that the smaller populated states already do have an edge in the governing of the country: The Senate. Seeing as each state gets two regardless of population the balance of power is restored.

The electoral college was put in place back when people were uninformed of what was happening in Washington. By the time certain states got news, it was old and in some cases inaccurate. With technology as advanced as it is today, there is no such issue. If you are uninformed today, you haven't turned on the TV, logged on to the Internet, or even talked to people in the general public that are informed. The electoral college needs to go. It is true that bigger states will have more say in the election, but that's the case now. The size of the state is irrelevant in this debate.

I'm not sure if we should or should not scrap it.  Unless someone has an airtight new way of voting for the President with all the kinks worked out, I wouldn't want to scrap the EC.  I do believe that the EC is a flawed system but I don't want to replace one flawed system for another even more flawed system.  My understanding for the reason for the EC was because people didn't have access to and/or weren't as knowledgable about the candidates running for President all those hundreds of years ago.  Remember, the internet, tv, and radio (or even the telegraph) are recent occurrences.  Mind you listening to some people today, they still aren't knowledgable about the candidates...so maybe we need to keep it...LOL.

Curiousity got the better of me so I went to check for certain. 

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a receipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing.

When the founding fathers decided upon the electoral college. they had no idea we would be voting electronically in this millennium and before.  Already West Virginia is having problems with votes for Obama going to McCain due to some machine failure in   early voting.  They had no idea that Jeb and Katherine would create the chaos that happened in Florida in 2000 and they had no idea the Supreme Court would take the reins and declare a candidate who did not get the popular vote President of the United States.  I certainly don't know what the answer is, but I do know this problem needs to be given serious attention and a fair resolution reached.

The United States was never intended to be a democracy.  It was meant to be a democratic republic.

You said it all Philly!

I agree with you Phylly !!!

Spoken like a truly uninformed (and yet very vocally opinionated) liberal philly.

And isn't it ironic to see all the liberals saying what a great idea having a popular vote is, at the same time they are rallying behind a Marxist (Obama) intent on changing our country to a socialist state, as opposed to any type of democracy or republic. One has to love the lack of logic involved.

Exactly my sentiments TVAN !!!!!

Exactly not my sentiments TVAN!!! Whatever with your Obama is Marxist bull. It find it amazing you claim to use logic yet still spit red coolaid talking points that only make you look ignorant and intollerent. Please know this is not the 50's and the red menace is dead, the Mcarthy era is behind us. The time that the rabid right could name call people into silence is behind us. Frankly it is pretty hard to take any please use logic criticism from a Bush/McCain supporter.

The people in the middle of the country have no vote now -- 3 electorial votes?  Come on the electorial college has outlived its time and now the vote of the people should count.

If that were true, Deb, then EVERY TIME a Republican won the White House, he would have lost the popular vote and that is not the case.  Every vote counts the same, no matter where you live. 

Barbara,

You hit it on the head perfectly!  It is a complete fallacy to say that Republicans would never hold the White House again if we abolished the electoral college! 

There have only been 4 times in our history were the popular vote did not decide the presidency over the electoral college.  In every other case Republicans won the popular vote.  Hell Reagan STILL holds the record for the most votes for a president; electoral college OR popular vote.

I believe we should do away with the EC.  It would be better for our nation by far.

Deb - I do know why the electoral college was created and as someone said here itwas created for the original colonies not a nation of 500 million and 50+ states. It has outlived its usefulness, the needs of the many out weigh the needs of a few, or one. 

The argument that the middle states would have no say in the voting process is illogical. Each and every American would have a say no matter where they live.

Does Butte, MT have a place to vote?...if so...your vote will count...AND it will count more than if left up to an EC....your vote...coupled with every other vote for your candidate is how elections should be decided....1 citizen...1 vote....elections can be bought...if they only have to buy a vote here and there as in EC's (I'm not saying this is actually happening...cough...cough...) but THEY CAN'T BUY EVERY CITIZENS VOTE...THERE JUST ISN'T THAT MUCH MONEY....oh wait....where did that $700Billion come from again?....well no matter....I didn't want them to do the bail out...but...the people who supposedly represented me did....mistake....I say again....1 citizen...1 vote....oh and guess what....I'm gonna vote OUT the bastards who voted for the bail out...I'll show em!

Yes we do have a place to vote.  We even have had Obama here twice this year.  Once for our states JJ Diner and then he spent the 4th of July with us, he has visited Montana 6 times and Biden once.  Had only the popular vote counted then we would not have even seen him or any other candidate here at all.

Ditto!  Terry.  The electoral college forced him to visit the Montana.  50 percent or more of the "popular vote" would come from California, Chicago area, New York, New England areas..and maybe Florida.  The rest of American votes would not count.

If we only had the popular vote Obama and McCain would only have to go to New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles,  San Fran, Dallas, Boston and Miami.  There would be no need to go any where else.  The candidates would say Montana "Where is that ?"

people...you're getting rialed up over nothing....according to my calculations...CA=11% of the pop of the US....NY=6%....do you really think the gov's and senators and elected officials won't have some say in where the candidates go?...combined NY and CA have 17%....there is another 83% out there somewhere....I'm sure no one thinks voters will suffer mass hypnosis and all vote the same way in each state....but...it sure does look like that when you see the EC votes...don't you wonder where your vote is?...

YES, YES! What a great way to put it in terms everyone can understand!!!

if we are to get rid of red and blue states everyone should hold off until election night to make their opinions known.  Because California, Illinois, and New York are always liberal and the large cities dominate their politics there is never a good debate and we earn the name of blue.  no matter how right or wrong it is.

Deb, that's the problem, you are still thinking on a State level.  Removing the Electoral College would mean that it doesn't matter where you live, all votes are the same.  If you live in Kansas, your 1 vote is exactly the same as Rocco in New York City's 1 vote.  It means that my vote counts the same here in Utah as my Grandmother in Pennsylvania.   Its about not thinking like a citizen of the State of Whatever and thinking like a Citizen of the USA.  I am an American, therefore, I am equal under the law to all other Americans.  Why should my vote count less because I might live in a "Blue" State or a "Red" State.  

The electoral college, if you actually study history was put into place because *gasp* the electorate was illiterate.  It wasn't every a balancing act for 'large' states and 'small' states.  It was a way of ensuring that Billy Bob Hillbilly with two teeth and a 5th grade edgimajication didn't get elected to the highest position in the land.  It was a purely elitist thing.  Now that we are an educated society, we do not need an electoral college.  I trust that your vote should be counted equally to mine.

spyder girl, you should speak for yourself on level of education.  With you living in Utah the politicians would not give a huge pile of dog do do for your opinion if your state did not get a few (4-5) electorate votes.  Your state would not even amass the population of New York city.  With Utah being a rural state you should appreciate the representation you get.  Otherwise all of the tax dollars for roads and public funding would be lost in L.A., Chicago, and NewYork.

It is not polite to comment on hilbillies the way you do.  I am guessing you are a transplant.  At least the hillbillies you are commenting have a moral backbone.

It certainly didn't represent the will of the people 8 years ago, and look where that has gotten us.  Just think of where we might be if the EC was abolished then. 

The Electoral College is not, nor was ever meant, to reflect the will of the People. It was meant to reflect the will of the States! Why? Because this is a Union of States NOT a Union of People!

Jo411538....you may be right about union of states...but it's all about the people....however YOU MUST remember this...."We the people in order to form a more perfect union" This Gov must be by the people and for the people....NOTHING ELSE!
So....I believe your statement to be incorrect....at one point...the EC WAS meant to reflect the will of the people...it just got out of hand...out of touch...and overwhelmed because it wasn't meant for such a large population....but...whoknew?...

Amanda, that is why you elect your state officials to match your values. I have already written a comment (near the end) on why I do not think we should take away the electoral college. However there is a reason we elect our president the way we do. We are a Republic not a true democracy. This is to respect the rightd and laws of each individual state. If your state votes red, would you like the vote to go blue because that was what the popular vote was?

Also consider that many Americans do not vote. While you may say that is their problem and they have no right to complain, would a popular vote truly be representitive of those Americans?

I have to disagree with you, SDGemini. We get to elect our state representatives, but not the actual members of the electoral college. They are chosen by the parties, and sometimes not even listed on the ballot, so you don't know who is making this all-important decision for you. And furthermore, if the members of the college are obligated to vote according to the will of the majority of the state (although they do not have to), isn't that just a duplication of the people's voting process, but on a smaller scale? I believe what SpyderGirl said, that originally, the electoral college was created for the primary reason that the majority of people were not considered educated or informed enough to decide the presidential election. In the 21st century, however, shouldn't each and every one of our voices count? To make a final point, the rights of the "states" should never come before the rights of the people who make up this one nation. Yes, states have a right to their own autonomy when it comes to many matters, but the presidential election is by definition a federal issue, that affects the nation at large, and no matter what state you live in, we will all have the same president. With all that said, I just cannot find the justification to maintain the electoral college system in this day and age.

Andrea, i have to agree with what you and many others have to say...I, too, see flaws in the electoral college and think something needs to be changed, but if you think people have educated themselves just because we are in the 21st century, I think you are sorely mistaken.  How many african-americans do you think will vote for Obama or women will vote for McCain/Palin? Thats not educated. I might go so far as to call that prejudice...

sdgemini...what you have suggested...there would be no way that would happen with 1 citizen....1 vote....the only reason the colors red and blue exist are for media purposes...it supposedly via polls lets people know which "party" has more votes...

red and blue wouldnt even count in 1 citizen...1 vote...because a single vote has the SAME....not more...not less....has the same impact as any other vote....if this is a democracy....majority wins...it should be in presidential elections anyway....

and for those of you who keep repeating this is a democratic republic....why is it that the US is trying to spread democracy all over the world...we procecute regime changes of other sov nations in the name of democracy....shouldn't we then be trying to change them in the name of "republic"?....symantics