The person in the less populace state has more power. Think of the name of our country: The United STATES. We are a collection of states, each of which is unique and special. The electoral college assures that each state is guaranteed a voice and that the larger states don't dominate.

Let's act like mathematicians and take this to its logical outcome. A state with only one person will give that person three electoral votes by himself! The people in smaller states have more control because there are fewer people voting for each electoral vote which means that their individual voices are heard more than people in large states. If you divide the number of people in Alaska by electoral votes, you will find that there are 208,977 people deciding each vote. Vermont, another state with a small population, has 202,942 people per electoral vote. Let's move on to medium sized states. Iowa has 418,046 people per electoral vote and Michigan has 584,614. Conversely, larger states give their citizens less of a voice. The Texas population-to-electoral-vote ratio is 613,288 and in California it is 615,848. I did all of the math in this post myself just now, so the exact numbers may be off a little, but the point still stands. Smaller states are given more of a voice in the electoral college than they would be given in a nationwide direct election. No one would care about states with small populations of the president were elected by nationwide direct vote. The electoral college ensures states' rights.

I think that, then I see idiots on the street who make me uncertain which way I feel.

This would shift all the weight of political influence to those people who live in metropolitan areas and take away the significance of the vote for rural people. There is a reason for the electoral college system.

I would like to see that, my only concern is that we in the US have become a very MTV/American Idol culture, I think we'd end up with people like Arnold Schwarzenegger in office (oh, wait). I also think that the electoral college method has been corrupted, but does keep a potential (key word potential) check on the system of buying votes, and voter fraud. I do think the system need some reform. But I know that I am not the person to decide how to do it.

Eliminate it 100%. It is an antiquated system that has surpassed it's usefulness. The president is the leader based upon the most people who wanted him to lead us. Let's face it, with all these teeny New England States that have low populations, it is unfair to give such states extra voting power when they truly do not represent the American people in a proportional way. They should abolish it immediately.

ah, yes. al gore would've made president, then who knows where the US would be right now. possibly not at war?

I do believe, that, yes. However, I also feel that in order for it to be completely effective, we would need to raise our education standards in the country so that people can be more informed about who they vote for.

Yes, it was put in place a long time ago when the population distribution was a concern. I think now with various forms of information, the popular vote should decide and not the candidate that has the most relatives controlling state governments. This way it would also be "reap what you sow" and voters will become more careful how they select their candidates. There will be no excuses for why the president was elected.

Yes! Everytime the election rolls around I start my usual rant about the electoral college about how they are supposed to cast their votes for the states poular majority - but they are not REQUIRED to this, this is a called being a "faithless elector" - so it's feasable that the popular minority recipient can be elected. Plus I live in Minnesota - where, in 2004 - One of my states 10 electors actually screwed up this - the one day that every Minnesotan is counting on him - by nominating John Edwards (the vice-presidential nominee) for President of the United States. Unreal

Yes, I think the EC system is not only ineffective, but an irresponsible way to get the populous to vote. I know of *many* people that simply did *not* vote because they knew the popular majority would win in their state (and they were going to go against the flow) -- it breeds complacency in voting for our leaders, and should be discontinued. On a similar note, I think the candidates for election would have to drastically change their strategy to start listening to the voice of *all* the people, not just those whose states happen to have higher Elector numbers.

What I think is wrong is the electoral college votes being cast as a single block. If the state's votes were shared out according to split of the vote, which would be fairly fair. This is because the number of Congressmen is proportional to population, and electoral votes are given by Congressmen+Senators. The Senators would make it a little weighted towards smaller states. It is currently regarded as a "states right" how it chooses its electors, so the states have chosen the block method in order to make them a big prize and get the attention of candidates. Of course, if everybody does it, than it is to no-ones advantage. Of course, the Supreme Court *could* rule (if asked) that the votes must be distributed "fairly". So you could fix, or at least change, the system without throwing away the electoral collage. You need to have some blocking mechanism. If you had a total one person, one vote across the country, imagine the recount problems if the election was close. It was bad enough with 6 counties in Florida in 2000. Imagine the furore if they wee looking for hanging chads, spoiled votes, tampering with machines etc in every county in the country. You would be at the next election before you agreed who had won the last.

Drop the college, One person one vote. While were at it, eVote If you can do it for taxes, voteing should be simple.

I have always believed that one person one vote idea, but the thought of Meritocracy holds some "merit" with me. The only real down side to that is "Who and how" would the criteria be established?

I think the Electoral College is a joke. If the Electoral College is supposed to vote the way the majority votes, Dubya wouldn't have been "elected" the first time. It should be one person, one vote democracy....majority wins....period!

we should just go over to a dictatorship the transition would be as easy as approving the patriot act and just like the patriot "Americans" won't notice

I am all for abolishing the electoral college and electing the president by popular vote.

Yes we should get rid of the college, it is ridiculous when a man can lose the popular vote but still get elected!

I think we should have one person one vote. I also think we should have the top two candidates go into a final election so one party can't send in an independent candidate to steal votes from the other side.

I will post a link: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/ pay particular attention to #68 (for this question). There is a logic behind the electoral collage. Whether or not that is out dated... maybe, but at least understand the reasoning behind it before you make your arguments. The others are great for understanding why other things were written as they were in the Constitution.

I think the electoral college is a better system that allows the states, especially the smaller states, to have some say in an election. Without the electoral college, the only places that would matter during a national election would be the large urban centers, particularly in NEW York, California, and Texas. The college is a useful tool that many do not understand why it is in place.

I don't think that an absolute one person, one vote would be possible nationwide. Imagine the chaos if you need a recount after a close election, with people looking for hanging chads etc. in every single counting centre across the country. I think you need some aggregating mechanism. But I think they should not allow the "winner takes all" in the states: if the states vote splits 55/45, so should its electoral college. Or base it on the congressional districts: each district gets one EC voter.

It is needed now more than ever. This is the best explanation I can find: After the 2000 election, most Democrats, and many others, jumped all over the "anachronistic" Electoral College, decrying it as a vestige of the past that needs reform or elimination. Why not just have a national vote for President? After all states don't mean all that much any more. Others asked "why winner-takes-all in each state?" Let's divvy it up by Congressional seat, they suggested (Maine and Nebraska do just this (although it didn't matter in 2000)). Or perhaps apportion the electoral vote to the percentage each candidate won in the state? I like none of these -- of all the arrangements, the electoral college still seems best. While it has the obvious (and recently demonstrated) "defect" of deciding close elections differently than the popular vote, this defect is intentional, and serves a purpose. The Framer's reasons for an Electoral College were several. In order to accomodate the small-state/big-state compromise that led to the 2-vote-per-state Senate, they needed a method to allow small states slightly greater weight in selecting a President. There was great fear that, in a strict popular vote election, the urban states would decide all contests, and no candidate would even consider the issues of the smaller and rural states. Yet they wanted the election conducted in the States, not in Congress. The EC solved this, providing a tie-breaker in close elections where the candidate taking the most states (of any size) has an advantage (the two "senate seat" votes). This is precisely what happened in 2000. Another reason is what we would today call a "firewall." Even in 1787, state politics were dicey enough that no one in, say, Virginia, wanted to absolutely rely on vote-counting in, say, New Jersey. After all, Eldridge Gerry (inventor of the "gerrymander") was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. In more recent years, vote-counting in Chicago and St. Louis has been quite suspect. In a close election for President, there would be great temptation for local officials to pad the vote if the election was strictly by popular vote. Even with the EC it happens (e.g. 1960 Chicago), but the damage cannot extend past the given state's electors. Note that much of the controversy in Florida in 2000 involved local vote counting practices, state election official's behavior, and the Florida Supreme Court's wholesale rewriting of election law. Which brings up the next point... A third (and probably more modern) reason is that recounts in a close election are also limited to the state or states in question. Consider the mess in Florida. Then consider the mess of a nationwide recount, with 50 state Supreme Courts, 50 sets of state election officials, and tens of thousands of local election boards. Some of whom are going to cheat to get their man over. There is no natural closure in a close election in this kind of system. We'd still be at it. Lastly, there is the matter of needing a majority. In the electoral vote system, it is quite possible to have a majority of electoral votes without a majority of popular votes -- the last President to be elected with a popular vote majority was George Bush the Elder. Clinton, Carter, Nixon (1968) and Kennedy all were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. But the EC all gave them a majority as the splinter party votes were eliminated at the state level. Of third-party candidates in recent history, only George Wallace in 1968 won any states. In a direct vote system, the requirement for a majority would be necessarily abolished. This is perhaps acceptable, but could lead to Presidents elected with over 60% opposition. Now, what about the "fairer" Congressional-district apportionment, or straight state-wide vote apportionment, rather than winner-take all? The first will be a non-starter until there is no such thing as a Gerrymander. It is easy to "fix" the partisan outcome in a congressional district by careful attention to district line drawing. Wonderously odd results can be manufactured. In 1988, the two major parties polled even for Congress, but the Democrats gained a large majority of seats due to gerrymandering. The second option allows significant third-party vote totals, or nearly any such vote totals in a close election, to throw the whole thing into the House of Representatives. Nader would have received enough electoral votes in 2000 in this system to throw the election into the House (and therefore to Bush). Historically, this has been a bad thing, so I see no reason to make it more likely. One last note, of the suggested alternate choices, only a popular vote method elects Gore in 2000. No matter how you apportion electoral votes (winner-takes-all, congressional district or statewise proportional) Bush wins (if only in the House), and in the congressional district system, Bush wins handily. Posted by Kevin Murphy December 11, 2003

Definitely not. The electoral college system keeps a few metropolitan areas from subjugating the rest of the country. It was put in place for the same reason that we have both a House of Representatives and a Senate: so that a system of checks and balances is in place. Now, switching it to a “percentage of the state” instead of “winner take all” system would probably be a good idea. Anybody have any thoughts on that option…? http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1005183

Yeah lets break up the Union while were at it.