Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[Sir Mohamed]

Yes, switch to direct PV election. With or without runoff is a matter up for the debate.

I'm tired of the argument that smaller states need to be overrepresented, because every vote should matter. One person = one vote. We can't let the zip code decide how much each vote counts, just as we can't count differently between race, sex, age or income.

[omar04]

Yes, the EC may have had it's uses when the Framers established it. However, the technology today completely eliminates any logistical need for the EC.

[Fight for Trump]

Yes.

And replace it with nothing.

[Non Swing Voter]

No.  This has gotten a lot of attention after 2016, but I think everyone forgets how awful a candidate Hillary was.  She was literally spending money in states like Texas and Arizona and not doing much in Wisconsin and other states that Russia had the foresight to target.  This is part of why the popular vote versus electoral vote was so out of whack. 

That said, the electoral college does have a republican skew.  But the whole purpose of it was to give smaller states a voice.  So one party was bound to benefit from it.  If the skew has become too large, which it arguably has, then the better solution would be to split some big states like California up.  Or split large states that are habitually 50/50 like Florida up so there isn't such a massive shift in electoral votes based on a few thousand actual votes. 

The added advantage is that this would also make the big state versus small state unfairness in the senate a little less extreme.  Right now California is like 80 times the population of Wyoming.  I don't think people who came up with the electoral college would have envisioned that kind of skew.  If the POTUS issue was resolved but the senate unchanged, then activists would just complain about the senate next anyways. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If the POTUS issue was resolved but the senate unchanged, then activists would just complain about the senate next anyways. 

Well, yes, because the more powerful chamber of Congress being an upper house that's as unrepresentative as the Senate is is also unacceptable.

[MarkD]

If the POTUS issue was resolved but the senate unchanged, then activists would just complain about the senate next anyways. 

Well, yes, because the more powerful chamber of Congress being an upper house that's as unrepresentative as the Senate is is also unacceptable.

Unacceptable? Not to me. I accept the way the Constitution distributes power in Congress. I accept that one-third of the Senators represent two-thirds of the people and two-thirds of the Senators represent one-third of the people.

But if you think it's so unacceptable that it needs to be changed, just remember that to adopt a constitutional amendment rearranging the distribution of power in the Senate, that's the only kind of amendment that requires being ratified by all 50 states. It's right there in Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Ratification by all 50 states is going to be nigh impossible. We can abolish the electoral college if only 38 states ratify the proposal, but not if you want to tamper with the Senate.

[Slander and/or Libel]

If the POTUS issue was resolved but the senate unchanged, then activists would just complain about the senate next anyways. 

Well, yes, because the more powerful chamber of Congress being an upper house that's as unrepresentative as the Senate is is also unacceptable.

Unacceptable? Not to me. I accept the way the Constitution distributes power in Congress. I accept that one-third of the Senators represent two-thirds of the people and two-thirds of the Senators represent one-third of the people.

But if you think it's so unacceptable that it needs to be changed, just remember that to adopt a constitutional amendment rearranging the distribution of power in the Senate, that's the only kind of amendment that requires being ratified by all 50 states. It's right there in Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Ratification by all 50 states is going to be nigh impossible. We can abolish the electoral college if only 38 states ratify the proposal, but not if you want to tamper with the Senate.

First, amend the part that says that part can't be amended.

Second, amend that part.

Done.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

If we are to retain it, I think doing two things:
1. As said already, increase the number of representatives, something like the "Wyoming Rule" (increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest entitled unit, which is currently Wyoming), which would also increase proportionally the number of electors.
2. Make it proportional - if a state votes 60% for Candidate A and 40% for B. A gets 60% of electors, B gets 40% - rounded to the nearest elector, and with a 5% threshold for obtaining a vote.
3. Make it mandatory to vote as a dedicated elector with harsh penalties if you don't.

If you're re-writing things that thoroughly, just replace the EC with electoral vote totals and make each state responsible for reporting them. It wouldn't have any downsides not already present, and it eliminates faithless electors.

[Grassroots]

It should be abolished, and a two round system should be put in place, with a jungle primary first and the two top percenters going head to head, all by popular vote. This system mirrors France's system.

[atheist4thecause]

The Electoral College should be kept. The EDC is vital to our system. Without it, the vast majority of the country would be disillusioned. Candidates would just go to the big cities, and their policies would represent only those in the big cities. This could lead to rebellion and an overthrow of the system/government.

People don't realize how much the cities rely on the rural areas despite the rural areas having totally different issues from the cities. For instance, the cities can't grow enough food for the country, but the rural areas can. But cities are going to vote in their own direct self-interest rather than something that is more indirectly in their self-interest. Why would city folks be interested in a farm bill? They wouldn't, but they'd certainly feel the impact when there isn't enough food to sell to the cities. Rural areas also benefit from the cities, where a lot of the profit is made and infrastructure built.

Why does this matter? The EC represents more than just people, but cultures. If all we have is popular vote then that is just another way the importance of the different cultures of the states are washed away. Different states need to be able to keep their sovereignty, and the EC helps them continue having a voice.

I do think there are some modifications that could be made. For instance, I wouldn't have a problem legally banning faithless electors at the constitutional level. I don't agree with the idea that one should have to have a majority. A plurality is just fine. I think that would raise the costs unnecessarily, make the system more complicated, and introduces new problematic dynamics such as a situation arising that candidates didn't campaign for, which means you have lower information voters. It's a bad thing when candidates get elected because of voters taking their 2nd choice.

[atheist4thecause]

I'm moderately in favor of abolishing the electoral college, mostly because I believe that a popular vote/electoral vote split undermines the legitimacy of elections.

If the electoral college is not abolished, though, I think we badly need to ban faithless electors and require all states to use the winner-take-all (WTA) method. I can see how, in requiring candidates to compete in a wide variety of states, the electoral college does have some advantages. But there's absolutely no reason to allow faithless electors; almost no one believes that they're voting for some elector as opposed to the candidate they choose to vote for.

As for WTA, all states should be required to use the same system so that state party leaders can't game the system. E.g. it would be ridiculous if, prior to the 2000 election, Republicans in MI or Democrats in AL had switched from the WTA system just to benefit their party's presidential candidate.

A split between the popular vote and electoral college doesn't undermine the legitimacy of the elections because the race was never for the popular vote. What that really says is that the winner went into lower-population states. That's why Republicans regularly get more EVs/votes. It's fair for both sides and both sides know the rules going in.

[7,052,770]

Candidates would just go to the big cities

They already do. The vast majority of campaigning is done in major population centers of a few swing states.

[atheist4thecause]

Candidates would just go to the big cities

They already do. The vast majority of campaigning is done in major population centers of a few swing states.

That's not true at all. Pete Buttigieg just won Iowa by going after the rural areas. Florida is won by the Republicans every cycle in the rural areas.

And btw, this whole thing about complaining about swing states misses a major point: Any state can become a swing state. California used to vote Republican. They chose to start voting Democrat every election. Republicans aren't going into California anymore because they have no shot to win it. Californians chose for it to be that way. If they want to go back to putting their vote up for grabs they will get more attention.

[Del Tachi]

Keep the Electoral College as it is an integral part of our federal system; moving to an NPV would require creating and enforcing national standards for voting registration/early voting/recounts which is would be nearly impossible under the current federal alignment. 

[AGA]

Obviously. One person one vote. It doesn't matter if candidates would focus less on rural voters; that doesn't give rural voters the right to more power (Not to mention that the implementation of the electoral college had nothing to do with this concern). No other country has such a backwards system.