"…Unlike the USA, who has friendly neighbors, Finland shares a major border with Russia, so the military is taken very seriously and resources aren't squandered on useless foreign wars…"

***********

Good, so you won't be insulted if the US doesn't come to your aide should Russia cross your borders? Glad to have that out of the way.

Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College because the demographics of the population centers, primarily on the east and west coasts, guarantee a win for their Party. The Electoral College, like the 2 houses of our Congress, was pure brillance on the part of our founding fathers. The EC does even the field, and does give the less populated areas in our country a voice. A voice the Democrats would love to squash. What happened to every vote (read, "State") counts?

Judging by the ignorant and ill-informed comments of many of the posters here (did ANY OF YOU pay attention during Civics Class????), it's a good thing that the EC is still in place.

The EC was designed, among other reasons, to combat exactly the ignorance and emotionalism shown in these posts.

Hell, I'm in favor of bringing back the requirement of land ownership as a requirement for voter eligibility. If people realized that each and every entitlement program devised in Congress would actually cost THEM (the individual voter and tax payer) money, they'd be less likely to vote for candidates who promise them a piece of the Treasury.

Of course the EC should be abolished, but it has to be abolished across the entire country. I can't believe that no one seeing what is going on. The Republicans want to only abolish the EC in California so that they can get get their fair share of EC votes in California, but they want all the votes in the red states. DO NOT ABOLISH THE EC UNLESS IT EVENLY ABOLISHED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

"If the masses took control of the resources by representation they would just want money spent on housing and food and other trivial matters."

Dude, you better come to Finland and observe the benefits on spending money on housing, food, and "other trivial matters". Finland is rated number one this year in IT, environmental standards, and social services. There are no homeless people here because government subsidized housing works well. Unemployment benefits actually pay your living expenses and the local unemployment office actively works to bring potential employees and companies together. The military is efficient because it is not overfunded. Unlike the USA, who has friendly neighbors, Finland shares a major border with Russia, so the military is taken very seriously and resources aren't squandered on useless foreign wars. The list I could prepare about the benefits of a generous social welfare system, backed by a government which understands that providing federal services for the benefit of the people plus national security are its two main functions, could go on for pages. When a government takes care of its national security without neglecting the people and the environment, the people take an active interest in the government. This is clearly what America lacks. Finns pay relatively high taxes to support the system, but when I compared my individual tax returns at the end of the last few years, I didn't see much difference in the amount of taxes I paid when I lived in America versus what I pay here in Finland. The feeling, however, is much different. When I pay my taxes to Finland, I know the money isn't going down some black hole. America has a big fat pork barrel and that's what needs to be eliminated, not the votes of the "masses". Get rid of lobbyists (particularly those representing the interests of foreign countries - why should they have any influence over what goes on in Washington D.C.???) and you take one giant step in the direction of bringing about democracy and true egalitarianism in America. In summary, I think you have a very condescending and incorrect attitude about the intelligence of the average American, the importance of social services, and the truth about the dysfuction in the anachronistic institution of the Electoral College. Maybe you should join the friendly Canadian who boasted about how their Parliament is tempered by a very important government official appointed by Royalty. We all know where the Founding Fathers of America stood on the issue of King George III. But clearly, the Canadians still think Royalty knows best, which is akin to saying the "masses" are just second-class citizens. So, Dude, I think you'd fit right in with America's friends to the north.

I don't think neither the popular vote nor the electoral is good; since we're prob. gonna be stuck with the two party system for a while, why not just alternate a Democratic Pres. for 4 yrs. then a Republican and switch off? Simple?

I think the president should be elected by popular vote and not by the electoral college. I live in Mississippi which tends to be a red state. I am a Democrat and feel I have little say in presidential elections. I know the outcome of our state's election before it ever happens. This makes me question every time we go to the polls why should I even bother voting. I feel my vote is not going to count. If elections were done by popular vote count, I would not feel disenfranchised.

It is past time to "86″ the Electoral College. If people really believed that their vote did count, the other half of the people would be more likely to vote. It would be much harder for fraud to occur, since those who would try to cheat would not have a specific state where they could pre-prepare to steal the elections.

It is important to choose the best candidate for all people. We all know that there are different dialogs of English throughout the US. Therefore, it is obvious there are also different ways of political thinking throughout the US.

We just have to come up with a way that favors everyone. If the big cities run over the small ones by their choices, the small cities will have to withhold the big cities food supply to get it to comply. This might work. Everyone knows that small cities value family and God. Everyone knows that big cities value money and isolation. I'm not picking on big cities, but everyone knows there IS a difference.

The electoral college must go for us to have fair elections in this country. It is a disaster that has empowered Southern and non-populated states while taking the power out of the people's hands. Its time to go. No other "Democracy" has a ridiculous system like this in place. It was just another concession to the South to get them to join the Union. We gave them slavery, we gave them the 3/5 clause, and we gave them the electoral college.

scrape it, it is a imbarrasment to out country

i think the electoral college is still important. it gives the least populated states the same vote. the blue states are most populated but fewer in number. this levels the playing field. the change i would make is to divide the electoral by vote. if 54% of the state votes republican, the candidate gets 54% of the vote.

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President arises from the winner-take-all rule (currently used by 48 of 50 states) under which all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state. If the partisan divide in a state is not initially closer than about 46%-54% (as is the case in Georgia), no amount of campaigning during a brief presidential campaign is realistically going to change the winner of the state. As a result, presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the concerns of voters of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Instead, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of “battleground” states. 88% of the money is focused onto just 9 closely divided battleground states: Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and New Hampshire.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and to guarantee the White House to the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The National Popular Vote bill has 366 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 11 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Why not change the constitution and say censor the presss, take away our right to own guns etc, why not give the big states 4 senators and small states 3 or 2

One of the founding fathers goals in creating the electoral college was to maintain the balance of power among the states. For example if a larger state was overwhelmingly in favor of a particular candidate (say 85%) and the rest of the states where in favor of the other candidate by only a slight majority (say 51% percent) that would not seem any more fair than having Florida decide the election. In fact a popular voting system would enable candidates to pander to a portion of the county that would get them elected while ignoring the rest of the country. They would just have to get out the vote in states. The current system forces them to do that in multiple states, especially where the race is tight.
The current system also forces candidates to focus on states that many may deem useless in a populous vote system. Small states such as N. Dakota, now have a voice on issues that they would not have with a populous voting system.
Remember two things 1) that Gore would have won the race if he had one just one or two other states such as Ohio or New Hampshire. If he would have put more focus there, Florida would not have even been an issue; and 2) The founding fathers did not want the agendas of the larger states to overwhelm the smaller states. The electoral college and the constitution was set up to protect the minority from the majority.

The majority of voters will not invest the time required to learn of all '68?' current candidates, the few that do will be lost like a drop of blood in the sea.

If it is a popularity contest, the media inform the voter, and that news medium must hold a bias.

Otherwise write-in Clint Eastwood and Harrison Ford, for popularity wins.

"apologies to both actors for their mention," who, just like the presidential candidates will not read this.

The fact that New York CITY does not have 600+ districts is a failing of those who uphold the Constitution as to with a proper apportionment level represent all of its people.

In a district of 30 000 people you have a high chance as a legislative member or even as a middle class citizen to know personally who is running for such congressional representation.

The election system for the Representative includes all those people who might regularly deal with them (the local public); this 'vote for' should seem more like a 'vouch for'.

The President is not for the people. The position is similar to a President of a Corporation–or as the position of the chief diplomat; if you are not in the high corporate management of that company the President must direct or 'checkmate with executive power' the decisions of that management–and The President deals for the majority of States with other foreign national powers. The Vice-President can only check the power domestically.

As a citizen, who could vouch for The President so as to provide a character reference in a court of law? This is the investment made of an Electoral College Voter: to become so informed as to account and vouch for that character. While the State governor might endorse a Candidate along with every State legislative member and their federal counter-points: the State pre-selects the electors before making such endorsements; this is a freedom.

The fact that New York does not have 600+ districts is a failing of those who uphold the Constitution as to with proper apportionment represent all of its people.

The President is not meant to have time for the public individually, and so the public at large can not responsibly hire such an administration.

Even with the ability of modern technology the current system is best for in times of troubles or extreme poverty relying on a low-tech solution is a safe guard.

NO,NO,NO. The people who don't like it are the same people who don't like the Freedom of Speech and the Seperation of State and Religion,and the Freedom of the Press in the Constitution. And they also don't believe in the Three Branches of our Government being seperate and equal.

Keep the EC! It has never been broke so it doesn't need to be fixed! It ensures that the winning candidate be truly representative of all America, not just the population centers or one region. Don't believe me? Look at a map of every single county in the 200 and 2004 elections. It is clear who was supported by the country as a whole (even if he wasn't supported by this voter).

The winner-take-all system is what is archaic and outdated. That system is what is non-representative of the people. Award electoral votes by a means other than that. That would be the best thing for this country.

Genreally speaking, the electoral college is a dessimation of the voter's voice, but in the eyes of the goverment, it does serve some purpose in that it minimizes the paperwork, so to speak. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that it will be completely scrapped anytime soon. However, it should and could be modified from the current winner-take-take-all system to one that allows for a candidate to win part of of the votes for each state. Also, in response to J Reed in Plano, TX: Our founding fathers had the foresight to include provisions in the Constitution that allowed for our laws to adapt as our country and times changed. During their era, though, a direct election was impractical and near impossible, considering the slow rate that information travelled. Thankfully, they had powerful discretion that gave them a vision of what this country could accomplish, given the proper tools.

The inherent problem with the Electoral College is that it creates major inequalities in the value of individual's votes and that it does not adhere to the principle of one man, one vote established by the Supreme court in Reynolds v. Sims.

Take the example of Wyoming and New York. Wyoming has a population of roughly 515,000 and New York 19,300,000. While Wyoming has 3 electoral votes, New York receives 31 electoral votes. This leads to a situation where every 171,000 Wyoming voters receive one electoral vote, while every 622,000 New Yorkers receive one. Therefore, in the upcoming election, a resident of Wyoming's vote counts roughly 3.6 times more than a New Yorker's.

The electoral college also creates a system whereby many people in this country have never truly had a voice in the outcome of a national election. In a red state like Utah, a lifelong democrat has never seen their vote contribute in any way to their presidential candidate's victory. The same could almost be said about a lifelong republican living in a blue state such as Massachusetts.

In looking at past election results, the outcome the Electoral College produced has conflicted with the outcome of the popular vote four times. As the system is inherently unfair, this should not be allowed to happen again. Unfortunately, too many states benefit from this system, making it unlikely for an amendment to garner the necessary votes to do away with the system.

One person, One vote !! IF that favors the folks who are concentrated together in big cities, so be it. Sparsely populated states should NOT have the same power as heavily populated states, no way buddy, and I COME from a rural state myself (SC). One person, One vote. Ditch the Electoral College, the sooner the better.

The electoral college had it's merits in days gone by. It was set up to ensure that the vote would give equality to the many differing points of view and different lifestyles in America back then. With today's dynamics and people moving all over the place, relocating due to jobs, it seems a bit archaic. I know that I live in an overwhelmingly republican area and my democratic vote never seems to mean anything. Why should I have no say as to who runs our country. I didn't vote for Bush in these past two elections and as poorly as the country has been run, having votes for a different administration could have made the difference. He is the only president ever in office that was not elected by a popular vote and look what it got us. I think it's a shame that a minority group can make all of the decisions for the majority.

As far as the arguement that the populated areas would all agree on how a country should be run, I absolutely disagree. Not everyone in NYC or Chicago thinks the same.

As far as change, it would be amazing to see what getting rid of the electoral college would do to voter turn out. I think you would have more people voting, since voter apathy would be less of a factor. Change is a natural product of time. Our forefathers could not have predicted what life in 2007 and on could have been like. Life is more fluid now, people less likely to remain planted in one geographic area.

I think it's very unlikely that Congress will ever amend the 12th Amendment, because it will ultimately take 3/4 of the states' legislatures to approve it.

This constitutional amendment process in Article 5 probably reflects the same sentiment outlined for the Electoral College; the less densely populated states will still be protected and represented through their legislatures.

Despite what the media would have you believe, we have always been a republic nation. I believe that sentiment still resonates today…

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all."
-1892

While we are at it, one of things we need to do is re-examine how the Electoral College votes are apportioned by the census which includes illegal aliens. The question we need to ask ourselves is should illegal aliens be counted in a census to determinable how many Electoral College votes each state is allocated.

Carl Burton, Sacramento, CA

I agree that the Electoral College ought to be swept into the dustbin of history. Perhaps if voters were truly in a position to understand that their individual votes actually do count, they would actually take more of an interest in participating in this country's elections, local or national in importance. One person equals one vote doesn't have a lot of bite when that equation effectively has no teeth as long as the EC exists.

In discussing this issue we need to stop thinking in 21st Century terms and start thinking like the framers of the Constitution.

In writing the Constitution the framers were seeking (desperately) to save a newly-born country that was sinking fast. One of the major millstones draging things down was the opposition by each newly minted state (former independant colonies all) to cede power to a central "federal" government. The Constitution represented the best way out of this mess, but to get it passed in the first place (rememeber, States needed to ratify it before it went into effect) meant making compromises and deals. One of those compromises was the Electoral College. The EC gives each state ultimate "selection power" for the office of President, since electors are appointed by each state individually, a power the state governments of early America craved.

So the EC owes its exitance not to a prophetic desire of the founding fathers to protect future generations against tyranny or facisim, or as check on the fickle whims of the people; it was a real-world compromise made by politicins (the framers of our Constitution) to appease other politicians (the power-brokers of their day who ran the various states). It was an plain, old-fashined political deal.

Does this deal continue to have any relevance in this day and age. Of course not. Do we still need an Electoral College? NO!!

It's time to begin the process to amend our Constitution, to do away with this vestige of 220 year old politics and to bring the electoral process for the most important office on the planet into the 21st Century. Abolish the EC and let's all be counted together!!

We are a country of states, and not of individuals. We vote as states, and our state's votes should be represented as such. The Constitution is a contract between states, and our vote should represent what each state wants as their leader. This was the reason the Electoral College was set up to do, cast the vote for the states in the way that the states voted.
Go Ron Paul.

If the country wants to change the workings of the Electoral College, then the STATES need to change the way they apportion their electoral votes. It's not rocket science! The Electoral College only provides for a winner-take-all situation because 48 states have a winner-take-all law which governs the distribution of their electoral votes. If people want a popular election, then simply pass a law in their state which says the proportion of electoral votes each candidate receives is the same as the proportion of the popular votes each candidate receives. Problem solved! The people get the kind of government they deserve. The events of the 2000 election did not happen because of the Electoral College, but because of corrupt political parties and lying, cheating politicians in states with disputed elections. Perhaps the states should stop pandering to the parties and focus on the candidates and the issues. What a concept!

Hanging chads, Supreme Cour decisions, etc. have nothing to do with the Electoral College. But the question about the relevancy of having the EC a tall and the indirect method of "popular" election that it represents is huge.

The net effect of the EC is to transform the "national" Presidential race into series of 50 state-by-state elections, with the states (not the eople) actually controlling the voters who do the electing. The EC members appointed by each state (various methods are used to select them) are "pledged" to vote in accordance with the poular vote results for their state, at least on the first go-around (which is all it usually takes). But in most states this first-round voting "pledge" is based on a winner-take-all approach (what California is talking about changing), so winning by only a single vote in most states is the same as winning every single vote in that state - you get the full allotment of the state's EC votes. This clearly distorts the actual facts of the popular vote (nobody is a unanimous choice in any state, but you can't tell that by the EC voting). Remember 2000, when Gore actually had the (slightly) greater number of total popular votes nationwide, but lost the election (let it go with the Flordia thing) because his "distribution" of votes didn't get him the winning margin of EC votes? That's what can happen, though in fairness the EC voting usually mirrors the popular vote in choice, if not always the magnitude (i.e., Reagan's "landslide" victory in 2004).

The EC system is a hold-over from an age when communications across the nation were anything but instant. It has the potential i nany election to contradict the "will of the people", and at the very least is a no-longer-needed buffer. In every other election all the votes are counted together and the winner determined by direct count - it's time that the holder of the most important office in the world, this country's representative and spokeperson to the world, finally also be truly elected "by the people" in an actual national election. Abolish the EC and let's all be counted together!!

It's time for the popular vote. A good example is to look at what the republicans want to do with the electoral votes in California. The Electoral College is a dinosaur and should become extinct.

Read the work done by Prof. Arnold Barnett of MIT. He suggests, and I agree, that each state's electoral college votes be distributed in proportion to the popular vote in that state. So if you got 60% of the popular vote in the state, you get 60% of the electoral college votes from that state (rounded to the nearest integer). This preserves the good aspects of the electoral college (small states still have a say) while eliminating the winner-take-all negatives. It would also make the candidates have to campaign in (and appeal to) all the states rather than just a few key swing states.

In my home state of Indiana, everyone knows the Electoral College is going to go to the GOP, so no one campaigns here, the local news and newspapers barely registers there is an oppossing view, leaving people ill-informed about what is going on. Get rid of the Electoral College, make each canidate work for each vote, instead of working for just the college.

Of course amendments are allowed and should be looked into but a very, very close search is called for. I just think that if an amendment drive is started, then the cause has to be very important. The one about gay marriage was plain stupid. And this one, well, i dont think it had the votes for it and i do have a strong feeling for the founding fathers.

It needs to be revamped. After the issues in the Bush/Gore election…with such close margins in the popular vote. It beffudles me that a someone could win the popular vote and still lose an election. More populous states may have some advantage over less populated states–but they already do in the legislature. Majority vote is how everything is done in the country. I say eliminate the electoral college. It is indeed a dinosaurs–and as we've seen before–it may not represent the will of the people.

The electoral college must remain, Americans are too dumbed down to make an intelligent decision. What do poor people know about handling billions in tax dollars? If the masses took control of the resources by representation they would just want money spent on housing and food and other trivial matters.

Nobody really knows if Bush lost the popular vote or not because millions of absentee ballots for President were not counted in states where they could not have altered the outcome of that state's vote. Without the electoral college, all of those votes would have had to be counted, and because the overall vote was so close, what was going on in Florida would have been going on across the entire country. One improvement without scrapping the whole thing would be to do what Maine and Nebraska do–a win in a Congressional District is 1 vote; the winner of the state gets the 2 senatorial votes–the proposed amendment in California. But every state would have to agree to make this fair.

American cities have been neglected for years because of the electoral college. With a popular vote we would have a democrat as president every year, and hopefully eventually that party would decline as well as it becomes obvious that they are only marginally more interested in curbing predatory capitalism. Let the the majority speak! Congress would still protect the weak states. Just imagine, no more insipid faith-and-propaganda-based elections where 90% of the election is geared towards deceiving the uninformed with feel-good lies. Well it feels good to say anyway. But who are we kidding reform will never happen. I see nothing that suggests America will rise again only more evidence of slow and apathetic decline.

The electoral college is a joke and it has provided us and history with the biggest joke in our history- George Bush.

The EC needs to go. The way the system works now is bogus and I believe that if every voter's vote actually meant something turnout at the polls would skyrocket. If more Americans vote for candidate "A" then that should be the winner. It is really pretty simple and would result in a government that is truly representative of the majority of Americans.

The electoral college is a safeguard keeping the larger population centers from establishing all policy.
As far as the hanging chad icon CNN chose to post with this story,anyone with a brain larger than a postage stamp could understand this was a filed die stamping the ballots and it would have been easily proven. It still could with access to some of the infamous ballots. Thus the wink and nod from Jeb when his brother called him about his Florida loss.
Be that as it may the electoral college votes the will of the majority of the voters in thier respective states and is a safeguard against facism.

While I certainly can see merit in the original intention of the electoral college system, I feel it is a detriment to our country today. It wasn't designed to work around political parties.

My suggestion is that if there is a legitimate concern over using just a straight-up popular vote, then we should keep the E.C., but get rid of the "winner takes all" component, as Maine & Nebraska have already done. Individual votes would have a more direct effect, then.

Incompetent electoral officials in Florida?? The correct word is "corrupt". As for the electoral college, what is the problem with direct vote? Nobody can claim that big cities vote 100% for anyone, and the fact of the matter is that the college is subject to massive manipulation. Witness the proposal in California!

First: the Electoral College is designed to insure an informed voter base; so not deciding the presidency on whims and fancies, or facts found spinning and solely originating from the local news mediums.
Second: the Electoral College seems off, and is: because the number of federal legislative members is off. One representative for every thirty thousand people; that ratio determines what one person can read when receiving correspondence from the maximum number of persons petitioning in that representatives district.
Finally: the State has been instilled with the responsibility of determining the method of Electoral College appointing and is so expected to choose people of trusted judgments, respected criticism, and the due diligence required to be informed. An informed voter knows if any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate has held a criminal record, has ever been fired from a job, and knows of any other criteria or trait which is deemed appropriate for use in a human resource style interviewing process.
The President is bound to a term of service for a set number of years; the President is a hire individual. Who hires the people where you work, and who understands what work is actually required to be regularly completed by a president to authoritatively hire? Who would ‘you’ deem best for appointment to the United Nations: so, who speaks the most languages or who deals best with strangers; if you can't answer please understand that the question is no different than the question 'for whom should be The President', and he also has a panel of appointed people to make such choices.
Here in Canada we have a Governor General to balance Parliamentary power; one which is still appointed by royalty. Expect a ‘casted’ prince brought up anticipating leadership…

Parties corrupt the election process and the democratic government method. A State appointed Electoral College can only be as pure as the State legislature. Nationally congruent parties found in State legislatures are bias even when corralled by federal laws.

Who would appoint a Congressional representative based on who they would nominate Speaker of the House… Our Parliament is voted in for that final Speakers position(The Prime Minister), we elect a Prime Minister via a party and overlook the representative we are actually meant to cast ballots for; be glad your nation has the checking power of the presidency. The popular vote is for the populous' district Representatives, the Presidency is to coveted and important a position to allow a media coupe.

The electoral college is obsolete, but it is undeniable that it provides some order.

Perhaps it should become constitutional law that a President must win both the popular vote and an electoral majority, and that recounts or revotes will occur until one candidate wins both. That may seem chaotic, but we can NEVER have another 2000 election again.

Oh, this touched on a sore point, pseudo-States and territories posing as real States. I'm from Ohio and have long lived in California. Why should cow patches like Delaware, Conn., & MD, or all-but-unoccupied Montanna have equal representation in the Senate or the Electoral College beyond matters fairly directed at States? They should be glad that they have a closer government-citizen ratio or higher land-citizen ratio and not impose their wills disproprotionately on others.

The political atmosphere is too charge to come up with a neutral ammendment.

First: the Electoral College is designed to insure an informed voter base; so not deciding the presidency on whims and fancies, or facts found spinning and solely oroginating from the local news mediums.

Second: the Electoral College seems off, and is: because the number of federal legislative members is off. One representative for every thirty thousand people; that ratio determines what one person can read when receiving correspondence from the maximum number of persons petitioning in that representatives district.

Finally: the State has been instilled with the responsibility of determining the method of Electoral College appointing and so is expected to choose people of trusted judgments, respected criticism, and the due diligence required to be informed. An informed voter knows if any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate has held a criminal record, has ever been fired from a job, and knows of any other criteria or trait which is deemed appropriate for use in a human resource style interviewing process.

The President is bound to a term of service for a set number of years; the President is a hire individual, who hires the people where you work, and who understands what work is actually required to be regularly completed. Who would you deem best for appointment to the United Nations? Who speaks the most languages or who deals best with strangers; if you can't answer please understand that the question is no different than the question 'for whom should be The President', and he also has a panel of appointed people to make such choices.

Here in Canada we have a Governor General to balance Parliamentary power; one still appointed by royalty.

Parties corrupt the election process.

I am one of many disenfranchised voters. My vote simply does not count in my solid red state. I have no representation of my choosing. Why bother even going to the polls? Overall, the percentage of people who vote in this country is laughable. Wouldn't more people vote IF their vote truly counted? I vote to do away with the Electoral College. Not that my vote counts anyway.

It should be replaced with another form of election. I do not think the popular vote should be in effect either.

It is not fair in the least to have the overpopulated socialist cities picking the president for rural farmers. The two have totally different needs.

I think we should NOT have a president. Just have reps and senators to come together once in a while to check on the state of things. In this age, there is no need for central office. Who really wants authority anyhow?

Wasn't Electoral reform something Hillary said she was going to work towards, the same day she won her Senate seat?

Yep.

What sorts of progress has she made?

Hanging chads have nothing to do with the electoral college. Hanging chads were the result of incompetent statewide leadership in Florida.

The electoral college is a necessity in our union of 50 states. We remain a union, correct?

As a federalist union, the electoral college is a valid and worthwhile institution. Musings which call for change to our federal institutions are based on subjective anecdote.

All of us live in 50 states. Our federal elections are based on that fact.

It's time the people decided the presidency via popular vote.

The Electoral College is simply a remnant of larger states during the Constitutional Convention not wanting to lose an inordinate amount of power to smaller states.

The electoral college ensures that big population centers such as New York, Los Angeles, Boston, San Franscisco, et al do not elect the U.S. president. It was intended to do so by the founding fathers. We cannot eliminate it lest we become a more polarized nation than we are now. We are a republic. Let it be…

Popular vote is the only way to get the candidate of the peoples choice.

If the US were still a nation of autonomous states, and the federal government had little affect on the lives of its citizens, the electoral college would still make sense. This is no longer the case. The president's decisions now impact us as individuals, not as citizens of the several states; therefore, we should elect this president directly.

I say do away with the electoral college. Say for example "the people" that being us tax paying U.S citizens vote the majority for X president. The electoral college is suppose to vote in favor of us. But they dont have to vote what we say. They could put into power their favorite etc. SO it should be decided by OUR VOTES not the electoral college. That is the only fair way. What is the point of voting if it doesnt really count and is ultimately up the the electoral college. there is some food for thought. What is the point of the popular vote if our votes don't really count. Think about it people. Our votes should determine who is pres. RON PAUL FOR PRES 08′

I think it serves a purpose because it lets sparsely populated states have a voice. If you go popular vote you may as well just hold the elections for New York, California and Illinois voters.

One person, one vote. Fullstop. Americans need to believe their vote counts, that it has meaning. The Electoral College takes away that voice now. I wait for the learned scholars and historians to explain the purpose and importance of the EC throughout the years. Don't waste your time. I know why they thought it was important when America was new–to "protect" us hot-headed voters from ourselves, from electing a bad President. Well, look what happened since the EC has been in place all these years? How many bad presidents were Selected? And how different, how much better would America be without the electoral college. Abolish it now. One person, one vote.

Yes the electoral college system should be scrapped. We didn't have the means to cast a popular vote back in the day. With today's technology we can certainly get everyone's vote in. And then the saying of everyone's vote counts will hold true.

And while we're at it lets get a popular vote on rather or not Bush should be impeached. I'm positive Bush would be out of office in a jiffy if we were to hold the vote next week. And that is even going with the 2/3 popular vote needed. The US people hate Bush, the world hates Bush, why do we keep him in office?

They have tried to take everything else out of the constitution. This will probably be their next move.

What have the democrats done while in office. Nothing except try to destroy others.

There is nothing good about the electoral college. It is an archaic group that should be dissolved. This is one of many of the representative government's downfalls. In this technologically driven society we live in with, the golden age of technology, there is no reason we should not have a direct vote for the leader of the free world. Imagine where we would be today without the electoral college…

Just imagine having to recount all 50 states not just one.
What a mess that would be!

The electoral college as it was originally designed no longer serves its original purpose. If anything it undermines a just and fair vote - the only remnant of 2 centuries gone by. It is the one remaining method of voting for an elected position, that of president, in this country and should be eliminated. History would be different today if we adhered to the "one man/woman, one vote" that guarantees equality to all in the political process.