If the current trend holds, this will be the 5th Presidential Election (and the 2nd one in the last 16 years) where the Popular vote winner does not win because we use the Electoral College to elect Presidents. I understand how the EC served a very legitimate logistical solution for a Country with far flung lands not easy to get to. I also understand how the Framers wanted most power to be held by the States (in general). However, it does fly in the face of "one person, one vote" as it gives the greatest number of votes (by proportion) to the smallest States. So, what say you? Shall we keep it or get rid of it?

NO

Keep. It's there for a purpose. You win some, you lose some. Regardless, the country continues on.

Seems to work just fine to me.

The U.S. isn't a democracy for a reason, and I'm OK with that.

Keep it and run a better candidate next time.

Nick, I agree with your last two lines but I'm wondering what you believe is the purpose that it serves - other than giving more voting power to the smaller States?

I believe that most readers know why all states have two senators regardless of their size. Tyranny of the majority.

And that's a good argument BM, but why do we not select a President using majority vote (or plurality) when all others are based on that?

Bingo....

Keith

It doesn't serve any other purpose than just that. It's only for there for state balance and fairness.

Based on last night's results, the attached map (click here) represents the Presidency without the EC in place. Do you feel it would be right to let only these places speak for the entire country? What if it was red in those counties? Would you feel the same?

My thoughts are this. Without the EC, we would become a permanent political monarchy overnight. Cool if your are on the side of the Monarch. Not so cool if you are not. America doesn't need that. America needs to be able to change and the EC is only one of many mechanisms to make that happen.

PS - I also know this. We need to do a MUCH better job teaching Civics and Poli-Sci in our schools.

I and some others around here are amazed at how little the average person understands how this country actually works. It's sad.

Just what others are you referring to? If it is Federal Senators and Representatives the answer should be fairly obvious. If you are referring to the advantage that our states population centers has in picking our states Senators you have a point.

So, let's talk about fairness. Alaska has 3 electoral votes with 750,000 residents. California has 55 electoral votes with 39.4 million residents. Doing the math, Alaska has 1 EC vote per 250,000 residents. California has 1 EC vote per 750,000 residents. Tell me how that equates to fairness.

I think the two-party system is what needs to go (although I agree that the Electoral College doesn't do much for fairness anymore; it's purpose was noble, but times have changed).

Well Ak gets three House seats while Ca gets 55. Seems fair to me.

Eddie - would you support a national voter ID card? I ask because, if you ever want the PV to count in the future, you'll need to issue those.

No, it's not time to get rid of the EC. As mentioned by Nick and others, the EC puts balance in the system. Without the EC, a few populous states would rule national politics, neutralizing the political intent of less populated states.

Dan said it best, the Ds need to run a better candidate. As it is, the Rs bad candidate beat the Ds bad candidate, something both parties might be well served to ponder for a while.

Sg

The Federal Government is a Union of States not a Union of People, that is why the the states elect the president via the EC not the people. The States themselves are a Union of people and you vote direct there.

Does it make sense for the formula to assign EC votes and representation to include land mass in addition to population? Not all one or the other but a formula to take both into account? Else, NY has undue influence over things that directly affect WY ranchers, etc.

Who gives a [Bleeeeep!]....

GO TRUMP!!!

Keith

It is there for a reason...but the reason it is there will NEVER be exercised.

The framers put it in there so that when the people elect an unqualified oaf to be President...like Trump...then the electoral college can step in and vote someone else into office.

That...will never happen. Since that's the reason it's there, it probably doesn't serve any useful purpose anymore.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

If it were used as it were intended then when the electoral college votes here in a bit they would vote for someone else to be President, probably even someone other than Hillary or Donald.

Fish on...

Todd