Has the time come to abolish the Electoral College???

If I may add, that she may have received less than 1 million more in the popular vote. The Virginia Governor pardoned 67000 felons specifically so they could vote. A cursory examination of the voter Database showed that at least 3 million illegally voted. Do you think they voted for Trump?

It may seem somehow undemocratic for the Electoral College to determine the winner in presidential elections instead of the popular vote. In reality, its wisdom is profound. Think about it:
A given state has so-many electoral votes, based on its population. A simple majority of that state's votes will determine which candidate will have those votes, so even a unanimous vote in that state won't give him any more. So the state's voice is heard nationally, regardless of him many votes are cast there. But what of the smaller, less populous states? Without an electoral college, their voices would soon be drowned in a deluge of votes from densely populated states & cities. Candidates would have no reason to address the issues pertinent to, say, South Dakota. He could simply kow-tow to Ca, NY, Fl, etc, wrap up enough of their voters, disregard Nebraska, and win. With the EC, every state gets heard, and so candidates have to win the less populous states' votes also. Every state gets a seat at the table.

Of course not. The Founding Fathers did not want a dictatorship by the majority. That's the reason we have a nation bi-cameral legislature, i.e. House and Senate. The House is represented by population and the Senate is represented by equal votes of each state.

To answer your question on the electoral college no it is not time to dispose of it it is however time to get rid of career politicians and lifetime pay for serving as little as 1 term of office, and there should be term limits of no more than 2 terms of office to any elected position during the life of the elected official and a cut in pay for all congress and senate seats to that of the average soldier paid only while seated in session, and no more entitlements for being in congress all must abide by the same rules and regulations and congress cannot vote themselves a pay raise it must be approved by a general election. We also need to get rid of all the liberals and liberal teachers in our schools and colleges, go back to teaching the golden rule and having the Pledge and morning prayer everyday of school, make English the only language for all documents and applications for goods and services nation wide, outlaw Sharia Law in the United States, Recognize that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, stop bowing down to this abomination of the LGBT movement and allow any establishment to refuse service to anyone if it is against their beliefs, reinstate the draft, and go by birth gender stopping the men or women from entering opposite gender restrooms a boy or man means male gender only women or girl means female gender only, enforce the constitution and all emigration laws stopping all refuge cities and the dream act illegal means illegal if you want any rights enter this country legally, stop all refuges from muslin countries till they can be background checked and verified on their beliefs, anyone stepping on a flag or protesting flying a flag from a foreign nation be arrested and thrown out of this country

If not for the Electoral Collage, Hillary would President Elect!

ABSOLUTELY! I think that the People in NYC and LA are WAY better at deciding how I should live my live... God forbid those hicks in rural America get a voice in how they are governed.

What would be the motivation behind removing the Electoral College? Did they not serve their purpose in the election? Why do you think there IS a time to get rid of the Electoral College?

The reason the Electoral College exists is to prevent precisely the kind of imbalance that can occur when only raw popular vote is considered in a national election for President.

If ONLY popular vote is considered, an individual would only have to win a handful of states - perhaps as few as 8 - 10. This would lead to an unrepresentative election, with only a handful of states counting.

The current system, ensures that in most scenarios, even small states with a handful of electoral votes continue to be important.

As a history lesson, this is why we have proportional allotment by population within the House, and each state has an equal number of senators, regardless of population, and all bills must pass BOTH chambers to become law (assuming the bill is signed by the president). It ensures that no one state, or group of states with large populations can ride roughshod over the concerns of smaller states.

Before folks go off willy nilly advocating changes to the way elections are held and counted, it might be a good idea to have a full understanding of the history, and the reasoning behind the way things are.

"...James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.Madison stated it this way:

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Alexander Hamilton agreed that "[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."

John Adams, who signed the Declaration of Independence and later became President, declared, "[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, stated, "A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils."

Some history regarding the origins of our Electoral College, and why it is so important to our liberties, and also, how devastating a simple democracy is to minorities. The Framers thought, and argued long, and hard on this issue, and researched the failures of direct democracies throughout history. The fact is, it's NEVER worked, and our Framers wisely decided to NOT enact something that's NEVER worked as our model of governance, or of elections.

"Origins of the Electoral College
Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government.27 Moreover, a republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

The authors of the Constitution had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they strove to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.Madison stated it this way:

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.28

Alexander Hamilton agreed that "[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."29 Other early Americans concurred. John Adams, who signed the Declaration of Independence and later became President, declared, "[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."30 Another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, stated, "A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils."31

Despite these strong statements against democracy, the Founders were also strong advocates for self-government, and they often spoke of the need to allow the will of the people to operate in the new government that they were crafting. "Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy," Virginia delegate George Mason declared, "the genius of the people must be consulted."32 James Madison agreed, speaking of the "honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."33

The delegates, then, faced a dilemma. Their fierce opposition to simple democracy ran headlong into their determination to allow the people to govern themselves -- and they knew that voters in small states would need to be free to govern themselves, just as would citizens in large states. The Founders reconciled these seemingly conflicting needs by creating a republican government, organized on federalist principles, in which minorities would be given many opportunities to make themselves heard.

The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical. The election process was seen as a clever solution to the seemingly unsolvable problem facing the Convention -- finding a fair method of selecting the Executive for a nation composed of both large and small states that have ceded some, but not all, of their sovereignty to a central government. "`[T]he genius of the present [Electoral College] system,'" a 1970 Senate report concluded, "`is the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.'"34"
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy