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

I think it should be kept but modified. The Presidential election is not, nor was it intended to be, a single, nationwide election but separate elections amongst the several states. Personally, I'd like to see the allocation process of electoral votes modified, though. Our current winner takes all system distorts the results and, in my opinion, depresses voter turnout. I think it also contributes to polarization. I'd much rather see electoral votes divvied up in the following manner; the 2 electors for the Senators go to whoever wins the popular vote in a state with the votes for the representatives being divided proportionally based upon the percentage of the total vote each candidate receives.

It should be up to the people. That is why a lot of people don't vote because we feel that it doesn't matter

Good question, PFC Aaron Knapp. I say it's antiquated and should be done away with. Maybe it was necessary when people traveled by horseback. We have INSTANT communication nowadays. There is absolutely NO NEED for the electoral college.

Yes, proof of voter eligibility being a necessity, leave it to the people to elect their representatives.

I think that it needs to be changed. First, the electoral college representatives while supposed to vote according to who won the popular election could conceivably cast their vote a different way. Second, it seems a like it does take some of the power away from the people.

I think that what needs to happen is that the electoral votes should be divided based on the popular vote. Take Florida (I live here so it is not a slam against any past voter issues), 29 electoral votes. Say the D candidate get 40 percent of the vote, The R candidate get 33 percent, and one small party candidate gets 25% with the remaining two percent spread out among several I candidates. Then by what I suggest, 12 would go to the D, 10 would go to the R, 7 to the third party candidate. and the others who made up that remaining 2 percent would not receive any electoral votes. This way the electoral college vote would be more reflective of the actual will of the people. Apply that to Texas a R heavy state. Say the R gets 70%, the D gets 20%, the strong small candidate gets 7% and the other 3% is split among the remaining I candidates. 27 electoral would go to the R, 8 would go to the D, 3 would go to the strong small candidate, and none would go to the remaining candidates. So in those two states the Electoral split would be 37 for the R, 20 for the D, 10 for the strong small candidate. Under the current system, the R would receive all 38 from Texas, but none from Florida. Under the system I would suggest, the split would show the true will of the people. It would change the outcome of some elections. In states like Florida where more of the state geographically is conservative, but the population centers are more liberal, the divide would allow the conservative minded people to actually feel as if their vote counted toward the election rather than the winner take all system we have now.

LTC Stephen F. GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" SGT (Join to see)

I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, and can stand behind that. If we didn't, the larger states (i.e. California, Texas) would have the potential to pick the president even if the rest of the country disagreed. However, as part of this system, it should be MANDATORY that whoever is voting on our behalf to go along with the popular vote, regardless of rather they agree or not. I completely agree with you that it is bogus the way it is now. I also feel that my vote is pointless and does not matter and have refused to vote the last several elections because of it.

I've always pondered this question. Number 1 - I vote because if you don't vote you have no right to complain, no matter the system. Being from Idaho I've always known my vote has almost no pull in the election of the Pres. There are 4, two for each district of the state. In the popular vote the States with the most people will have the most say if done by popular vote. To me the electoral college is ok IF: Electoral voters are determined by voting senatorial districts, and each electoral person is legally bound by the popular vote of that district to vote for president as the district voted. So for each state it isn't winner take all, if the whole state voted republican except one district which voted democrat or what ever, then the electoral person of that district is legally bound to cast that district's vote for that person. In this way our votes would count.

It's better than any other system anyone has come up with

Once again I am proud of the first responses to this question. They are the product of good citizens who understand the purpose of the Electoral College. Yes, it is absolutely necessary to give all people an equal voice in selecting the President. This is one of the few bright spots in my day which is, as usual, marred with the insanity that dominates the news

No. If a state has 20 electoral votes. Using this as an example. The person with the majority gets two votes and the 18 go to the majority winner in each congressional district. Then in California we would start electing a candidate that the people want. Not someone that San Fransisco liberals want. I know democrats do not like the electoral college.