The founder devised the system, as GTH correctly said, to "filter" or "channel" (metaphors from the Federalist) the democratic voice. It's basically a check on democracy, which worked as long as the power of the Presidency was counterbalanced by the democratically elected Congress. And I agree with GTH that democracy is not an unmitigated good. The problem is that, since the days of the founders, the President has gained vastly more power than the Congress. With America's turn toward un-Constitutional ideas like national sovereignty, there is hardly a check on executive power anymore. Even if the Congress managed to talk tougher, it would hardly matter because their power has been so eviscerated. And the President's party agents have even managed to intimidate the judiciary to the point where this last check on executive power has been vastly reduced.

So, as long as the President runs almost everything, the voice of the people needs to be heeded as carefully as possible. When the President can fail to win even a majority of the people yet claim to have a "mandate" just because his office is now so much powerful than it was under Washington or Jefferson, you know the electoral college is a disaster.

What should we do about it? Abolishing any and all electoral colleges for a direct referendum would be a mess. Imagine another election where the vote is as close as 2000 ... except this time the recount would have to be done on a national scale. Florida wasn't competent to recount its own votes; can you imagine the whole country attempting this? The solution is simple: let's just have an electoral college of Congressional districts rather than states. Every district has one vote. That would ensure that, if there's a need for a recount, it could happen with a reasonable degree of fairness and efficiency, even as the result comes closer to the will of the people.

As for those who worry that large cities will decide elections: sorry, folks, that's the way it should be. Democratic elections work by population, not by acre. I am continually astonished to hear the foolishness coming from rural voters like my in-laws who seem to think that they are entitled to more votes just because they live in the sticks. For too long the tiny states have had a disproportionate say, which explains why they have always been the beneficiaries of the federal welfare whereby Californian tax dollars pay the Dakotan suburbs. That's a travesty of democracy.

The problem is that the intent of the founders has become subverted. The original concept was that the state legislatures would pick the electors who would pick the President. This concept actually existed up to about the American Civil War.

After that, elections increasingly were handed over to the voters in general and the electoral college atrophied.

Rather than the best the country could offer, we received the best that money could buy.

Compare the first ten presidents to the last ten presidents.

Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, and Polk. I did not include Tyler as he was not elected president.

Compare that list to the last ten elected. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George Bush, Obama or McCain. I left out Ford who was never elected.

The lists have no comparison as to quality.  

Never. One of the best legacy our forefathers left us is the Electoral College.

As much as the Electoral College system is controversial, eliminating it would be disastrous consequences- and its implications immeasurable (negatively). First and foremost, an Electoral College system helps maintain a federal system of government and equal representation (a cornerstone to our democratic ideals). Secondly, the Electoral College system serves to promote the cohesiveness of the nation by requiring the equal distribution of popular support in order for any one individual candidate to be elected to the Presidency. Without this system in place, larger metropolitan areas or more populous states and regions would drown out more rural and less populated ones. The Electoral College system serves to balance the interests of all states and regions within during a Presidential election. Finally, the Electoral College system enhances the status of minorities (in effect a VOICE) because their vote can always make the difference, especially in close, contested elections- and whether or not a preferred Presidential candidate gets all or none of the electoral votes in any given state). In effect, the Electoral College makes it possible to achieve a level playing ground for all who choose to participate in the Presidential election process. The Founding Fathers were not a bunch of idiots, and they knew well that the potential for popular demagoguery in national elections was always a distinct possibility. At the very least, they also knew that with a direct popular election, a multitude of political parties would have resulted with the incentive to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to win a Presidential election- then enabling any surviving candidates to be drawn to certain regionalist views in order to win a run-off election. This would lead to an unstable political system with the possibility of one radical change of administration to the next. The Electoral College system essentially removes this possibility by encouraging a two-party system, with each party coalescing divergent interests into two contrasting alternatives for the voting public. In any case, the Electoral College preserves the political stability of the United States as a whole and hopefully ensures that no popular demagogue should ever take office. Moreover, numbah16tdhaha says it best when he writes "if we did this and went by popular vote, the ten largest cities would decide every election and a large portion of voters needs would go ignored." Enough said.

No. . .it's failed once or twice in 200+ years- that's not enough to junk the system. . .

Psst... if we did this and went by popular vote, the ten largest cities would decide every election and a large portion of voters needs would go ignored. Hmm...

Absolutely, with one proviso. If all of the signers of the original US Constitution can be resurrected and convinced that the system they instituted, so many years ago, is fundamentally flawed. They would, apparently, be the only people who truly understood its value and I'd go along if THEY were convinced that it doesn't work. (It doesn't work?)

California, New York, Texas-the three largest states are ignored in Presidential elections.

Add to that New Jersey, Maryland, Delawere, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, just to name a few!

Why should the 'swing states' get all the attention? Abolish it I say.

The electoral college was written into the Constitution because some fat rich guy back in the day wanted to stack the deck against common folk like me. One man, one vote, and damn this particular college.

I believe many elections have a low voter turnout simply because alot of people feel their votes don't count...and, depending where they live, they are usually right. Kill the electoral college and let everybodys' vote count.

I recently completed a research essay on the way America votes and how do we fix it. Below is part of that essay. The sweeping idea of reform in the way America elects the president, has become vocal since the ill fated elections of 2000 and 2004. In the 2004 United State's Presidential Election, only thirty five seats out of the four hundred and thirty five seats remain as undecided and thus a minority of voters determined the winner of the presidential election. (Dunham R. S., Walczak L., Dwyer P., McNamee M., Starr A., 2004) Disenfranchisement of voters occur as the number of swing states, those states not considered as already decided, dwindle to only seventeen or eighteen. For Democracy to survive in America there is the need to bring the voice of the American people back into American politics. The Electoral College is based on an undemocratic notion that the geographic few should have a louder voice, and in this, the new millennium, stronger resolve is necessary to bring about the dissolution of the Electoral College. In the 200 year history of the Electoral College there has been numerous bills challenging its role in the Presidential Elections. Voters are not wrong when voters perceive that not all votes count, because the Electoral College cancels out votes by giving other votes, in other regions, more weight. To illustrate this, consider Wyoming and Texas. According to Professor Philip Klinkner, of Hamilton College, a Wyoming vote is worth the same as four Texas votes. (Free Republic, 2000) ... Beyond the Electoral College, the bi-partisan efforts to intimidate voters through voter registration restrictions and inadequate Election Day resources, limits the amount of votes that actually make it into the questionable Electoral College equation. Representative John Conyers Jr., author of the book, Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio, raised concerns regarding irregularities involving voter intimidation by requiring some voters in Ohio, to wait in bad weather for up to ten hours to vote. For those voters with the patience, nonfunctional, faulty machines, allowed for an uncalculated amount of Democratic votes to be given to the Republicans.(P. 8) The formation of grassroots organizations capable of breaking the hold of the two parties system requires the disillusion of the Electoral College. To the voter, rather than to cast a vote for an independent candidate, who has no chance with the electoral vote, would be to pick the lesser evil of the two parties. The results of this are to deny the true voice of the people from being heard. While America seeks to promote itself as the defender of Democracy worldwide, it has done little to secure democracy in its own backyard. Each American voter has the right, according to the Constitution, to exercise the right to vote without fear of intimidation, and with adequate representation to facilitate the receiving and counting of votes. In the elections of 2000 and 2004, the world watched in disbelief, then hoped and waited, for the American people's challenge to stop the high jacking of the White House. All the while, the American people seemed disenchanted and incapable of demanding proper representation. With the highest office in the Free World, the Presidency of the United States, at stake, the American people could find no voice to demand that honesty and integrity be brought into the political system. The Electoral College continues to underscore the concept that every American vote is worthy to be counted and should be considered equally, when deciding, who is the most qualified candidate, to hold the office of the Presidency. The defense stance that, because the Electoral College has survived two hundred years, should insure its existence for the next two hundred years is a fallacy. The horse drawn carriage of yesteryear is gone and replaced by today's modern transportation. It is time for the political system to keep up with the times and reflect the opinions and needs of today's Americans.

Absolutely. People say that it would lessen the importance of smaller states. That makes no sense at all. If the electoral college were abolished, it would make it so that NO individiual states would matter at all (as far as electins go). It would be more of a true national election. Think about it, take i don't know, Wyoming. The least populus state. Now, with the electoral college, they only have 2 electoral votes. Because of this, candidates spend very little time campagining there and the citizens of that and many other states with small populations; Vermont, Delaware, Montana etc. But if there were no electoral votes, they would have to campaign EVERYWHERE to get the INDIVIDUAL'S vote. The VOTER'S vote, and not the ELECTOR'S or the STATE's vote. Jed1000 sums it up perfectly. ONE MAN ONE VOTE!.......... Somebody please tell me how the stupid idea that abolishing the electoral votes would lessen smaller states importance because that is the most unsubstantiated and ridiculous point and i can't believe how wide spread it is becoming..... The large states would have all the power huh? Well lets think about this, the 5 largest states; California: 34,000,000; Texas: 21,000,000; New York: 19,000,000; Florida: 16,000,000 and Pennsylvania and Illinios each with 12,000,000 . Totalled up, that is about 114,000,000. The population of the US is roughly 285,000,000. That leaves over 170,000,000. So even if you take the five (well actually six) largest states in the US, they account for only 40% of the population. And most of the stupid claims on here are complianing that it would be decided by only California and New York. In reality, those people are just afraid because they realize that if we had a real democracy, Bush wouldn't be president. I have a feeling that the the electoral party will be abolished in the near future. Thank God, then we will be able to live true to the policies that our country was founded on. Also, eliminating he electoral college would most deffinetly increase the number of voters, so the numbers WOULD NOT be too close. The reason that voter turnout is so low, is because in virtually every state but the swing states, voters don't feel that their vote will count. Take a republican in Massachusetts, this ought to turn the heads of some of these strongly opposed republicans. There are more registered republicans in Massachusetts, probably about 1million more, than there are in all of those little red states in the middle of the country with very small populations. But, since MA always goes democrat, republicans don't see the need to vote, because it won't matter. And on the other side of the political spectrum. Think about the democrats in Texas, there are millions of democrats in Texas, but do they all vote, NO. because just like MA always goes blue, TX always goes red. If the electoral college were eliminated there would be no more red or blue states. Voter turnout would be probably close to doubled or more. And again, if there were a higher voter turnout, there would be a dramatically lower likelihood of the need for a recount. One thing that I think would be verty interesting to see, is what would happen if in 2008, a Democrat holds wins the electoral votes, and a Republican wins the popular vote. I wonder what the republican's take on the issue would be then?

I believe it should be, yes. It boggles my mind that it's possible to win the popular vote, but lose the election. If every votes counts, then why doesn't EVERY VOTE COUNT? Right not it seems to me that 200 some odd votes count, and I don't get to place any of them. Perhaps if the EC were abolished, then I'd vote, and consider myself proud to do so.

We are the United States of America, not the People's Republic of America. When a state joins the union, it is a contractual agreement where the state is guaranteed it will retain much independence, a fair chance to bring its concerns before Congress, equal footing to all other states in the Senate, and the right to cast that state's votes for President in exchange for forgoing certain interests to the federal government. The EC was intended as a means of keeping power spread out across the nation instead of concentrated in just certain regions of the country. We are in reality a nation of 50 little countries operating under one federal government's banner -and the President is the only office in which it is the states who determine who will lead over all the states. The President is the elected representative of the STATES, not of the people -and that is because we are the United States and not the People's Republic. If we abolish the EC, aside from the need to change our nation's name, small states like Rhode Island and less densely populated states like Wyoming, lose real influence in government and lose most of their ability to bring their concerns to Congress. Only those most densely populated areas primarily on either coast would wield real power and far more of it because it would be those regions that end up determining who runs this country to begin with just a popular vote. No candidate would find it necessary to understand and address a wide range of concerns in order to win over the right combination of states, because the very concept of states would be meaningless -states whose concerns may vary wildly from state to state. They would only need to concentrate on densely populated urban areas and THEIR concerns in order to win the popular vote. Sometimes those concerns of densely populated areas compete and clash with the interests of others. Without an EC, guess which would always lose that competition. Without the EC the vast majority of states would never even see a Presidential candidate campaign in their state. Which political party or candidate would care about Wyoming's concerns - which are in no way the same as a more densely populated state like California, New York or Florida? Without the EC, Wyoming is a piddly, low population state that would play no real role in any Presidential election, therefore always safely ignored. With the EC and in a close election, their 3 electoral votes may make or break a candidate. Even Wyoming's representatives and Senators would have little influence since they would not be necessary to support any Presidential candidate or party, making it more difficult for them to bargain for support of their legislative concerns. Finally, the founders created the Electoral College as a means of preventing the domination of some regions and their densely populated cities over the rest of the nation. The few times a President has won in the EC but not the popular vote have been so few as to be very unusual -and the margin of loss at those times less than 1%. But candidates specifically design their campaigns based on winning in the EC and winning states, not the popular vote and it only means those candidates who lost the popular vote but won the EC, did their planning right. Abolish the EC and candidates will redesign their campaigns based on winning the popular vote -with all that follows; a very narrow range of issues in the future that primarily involve urban areas, the other concerns of most states totally ignored, states themselves minimized in running government while candidates woo only the urban vote - with real power and control turned over to just a segment of society while disempowering the rest. No thanks -but the EC serves a vital function to spread out power among us, decentralizes power across the nation that would be much harder to put back once the full ramifications were felt after abolishing it -and we found the country being literally run by the urban populations of California, Florida and the East Coast and the rest of us totally screwed.

definitely not. the electoral college insures that a person's vote in alaska is as important as a person's vote in california. the combination of the popular vote and the electoral college is a much better barometer of public opinion than the popular vote alone.

Yes, it should. Anything other than one man.. one vote goes against everything I believe in.

Never! If you do that, then the next time we have a mess like we had in Florida in 2000, it will take place everywhere, instead of just in one state.

Oh yeah, I really want California, Ohio, Florida, and New york deciding all the presidential elections.