If you abolish the EC, you might as well just

[B2G]

hold the vote in CA, TX and NY only.

And tell the other states to go pound sand.

[Tiggeroshii]

1. Well yeah. When most of their state is sand, that is what they would do.

Just because you don't want to live around people, doesn't mean your vote should be worth 6 times more than everybody else. In fact the people most affected by presdential policies are those in urban states, which means their votes should be accounted accordingly.

1 person, 1 vote. End of story.

[B2G]

2. It won't happen.

No way will the other states vote to abolish it. It would essentially disenfranchise their voters.

[Dream Girl]

3. How does it disenfranchise anything? We're all Americans.

[Tiggeroshii]

9. It would disenfranchise them from the 3-5 extra votes they are worth now.

Their vote would mean as much as someone's in LA and NY.

What an injustice to humanity.

[okieinpain]

40. lol. n/t.

[Skinner]

4. Maybe you haven't heard.

If we abolish the Electoral College, then every person in every state would get their vote weighted equally.

[B2G]

6. And do you really think that's going to happen?

People in different geographic locations have different concerns. I honestly don't see how allowing 3 states to dictate federal policy is acceptable or fair.

[Skinner]

13. No, I don't believe the electoral college will be repealed.

But you're the one who started the discussion about it, not me.

[drm604]

14. It's not about allowing states to dictate anything.

It's about individual votes, regardless of state. It's about allowing the people to decide, not the states.

Just because someone lives in Wyoming, it doesn't mean that they should have 3 times the political power that I have. Yes, that's how the current system works, but it shouldn't be.

[treestar]

19. Didn't the three states of Mich, WI and PA

do so this time? At least it would be states with the most people. But without the EC, and its winner take all of state electoral votes, each voter would count equally. They'd need votes of people everywhere as many as they could, not a majority of certain states.

[boston bean]

23. Good point.

[jmg257]

27. Not really - it was more like 29 states...

Hence the issue.

United States as a Union was built around balancing the power of states, urban areas, etc.

[pnwmom]

57. It wouldn't happen. Ever hear of national television and national Internet?

We are connected more than ever before. We don't need the Electoral college that is skewed to rural white voters.

[uponit7771]

5. no... the EC was a racist compromise in the first place

http://fusion.net/story/369039/electoral-college-racist-trump/

[jack_krass]

50. That doesn't pass the smell test. IIRC, Abolitionists were NOT a majority in the 1800s. Most were

From rural areas and many were from radical religious groups. These people were NOT well liked in the North, often the victims of riots and mob violence.

Saying that an abolitionist would have won a popular presidential election in the 1800s is horseshit, and sounds like another tired attept to drag race and racism into every goddamn facet of everything that has ever happened in the history of everything.

[LostOne4Ever]

7. That's where the People are! And, The presidency should be selected by the people!!!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Or are you are okay with the people of Wyoming having 20x more say than the people of Califrnia?

Do you think the people of Alaska are more important important than the people of New York?[/font]

[B2G]

11. Here's what will happen.

Candidates will focus ALL of their efforts or those large states. Everything they do in office will be with those states in mind, because, you know...re-election.

Presidents represent the people of 50 states, not 3.

[drm604]

15. That's what happens now. They focus on the swing states with the most electoral votes.

If you eliminate the electoral college, then they'll have to focus on everyone, all over the country.

[B2G]

16. Why would they focus on low population states? nt

[drm604]

22. They don't now.

They currently focus on large swing states.

[CajunBlazer]

45. Who cares if they concentrate on low population states or not?

Do you think it okay for Presidential candidates to concentrate on little NJ with its 4 electoral votes while almost completely ignoring Texas and California because the former will in in all likelihood go red and the latter will certainly go blue?

You are obviously live in a low population state or a swing state and you like having more voting power in a Presidential election than voters those in other states. Those who have power seldom want to relinquish it for the greater good - is that by definition selfish?

But don't worry, a constitutional amendment to go do away with the EC will never get the three quarters of the states necessary pass it. Too many small population and swing states like their power to much to vote to lose it.

[Retrograde]

28. No, they just focus on the swing states

We actually had some presidential candidates show up here in California for the primary, but even that's rare. Mostly we just get pleas for money and more money to spend on TV time elsewhere.

[hughee99]

36. Not on the large states, but on the big cities.

Or at least the big metropolitan areas. Indianapolis, Nashville or Minneapolis will mean much more than Northern California, northern New York or west Texas.

Also, it means that corruption isn't contained to a single state. The rigging of votes or the count in one single state will, at most, win that state. When dealing with a national popular vote, fake vote counts in Alabama or Georgia have the potential to swing an entire election. No longer will HOW the voting is handled be a state matter, since the votes are no longer separated by state, and you'd have a bunch of equal protection issues because it's not done the same way in all states.

[Kolesar]

49. Your citation of cities is insightful

[taught_me_patience]

37. Meanwhile no candidate visited the 50 million people on the west coast a single time

and probably won't over the next thirty years. Is that fair? Should candidates spend more time in Peoria than Los Angeles?

[okieinpain]

41. +1 n/t.

[moonscape]

62. The less populated states are overly represented in Congress. So -

as a resident of California, I am already less represented than someone in Wyoming. Okay, I get it. That's fair for all states to be well-heard in Congress. But shouldn't I be equal to any other American citizen in at least one branch vs less represented in all?

A liberal in Texas and a conservative in CA would at least feel as though their vote counts. I think candidates absolutely would show up around the country because every vote would count vs just votes in swing states.

As it is, candidates pay no attention to the most populous state. That seems somewhat more unfair than paying attention to it actually.

[Jake Stern]

21. That's the most frustrating thing

A single Nebraskan's vote counted as much as mine and my fiancee's (we live in Colorado) vote put together thanks to the EC.

[hrmjustin]

8. This is a bad thing?

I kid I kid!

[Demsrule86]

10. Not true...but people should vote.

why should someone's vote in Maine be worth 3 1/2 California votes?

[scscholar]

12. What would be wrong with that?

The will of the people is the will of the people.

[treestar]

17. no that would be one person one vote

there would be no winner take all of electoral votes, so each vote would count equally.

It has been argued candidates would not campaign in small states, but with the internet it would be easy to watch campaign speeches.

The states would not matter like they do with the EC. So people would be more eager to vote because their vote would count, whereas it doesn't if you vote for the loser of your state, even if the one you vote for wins.

[RonniePudding]

18. Works for me if bad choices are continually made by voters in the other states

[LanternWaste]

20. Another insightful, well-documented and well-supported analysis...

Another insightful, well-documented and well-supported analysis... and again, worthy of a bumper sticker on a primer-gray colored pick-up. Consistency it seems, is quite a forte of yours.

The rational mind allows premise, support and conclusion. The irrational mind simply wrap itself in absolutist allegations, and hold its opinions far above the studied analysis.

[Ken Burch]

24. Not really.

If every vote counts equally, presidential candidates will have an incentive to campaign everywhere.

Democrats will be campaigning in the South and Mountain West. Republicans will be campaigning on the coasts.

And if the major parties don't satisfy people, others can take their place(or the major parties can be made to change into what people actually want).

Even better, with direct presidential elections, we will get in the habit of seeing ourselves and each other simply as Americans, and let go of the regionalism that does nothing but divide and diminish us. All we ever got from dividing by states to the degree we did was 1 million people dead on domestic battlefields between 1861 and 1865.

[seaglass]

29. Why wouldn't this encourage more people to vote? Republicans in Blue states, Democrats in Red states

would all feel like their vote counted and that it was meaningful.

[SoCalMusicLover]

30. As Opposed To Now....

Where the election is determined in FL, OH, PA & WI.

The current system pretty much makes CA, NY & TX irrelevant and predetermined.

[RandySF]

31. San Francisco has more people than 5 states.

So if you live in one of those states, your votes has outsized power. And people cluster around certain areas because that's where jobs are.

[themaguffin]

32. In other words, you are in favor of some states having voters who count more- as it does now.

[TheFrenchRazor]

33. ok, sounds good, and i live in south dakota. nt

[Stargleamer]

34. Hello??? Florida has about as many people as NY

and saying as you do that abolishing the EC will never happen, doesn't really make a good argument for why you think some people's vote should count more than others.

[NCTraveler]

35. The context of your argument is flawed beyond saving.

State lines would be insignificant if the EC were done away with. Your argument hinges on state lines that would become insignificant.

We need to do something to stop white land owners votes from weighing more than others.

[yallerdawg]

38. The Electoral College is representative...

and weighted by population, same as Congress.

Are states obsolete now?

Is the US Constitution?

Or does it just hurt to lose?

[lunamagica]

39. One person, one vote. That how democracies around the world do it

why are you OK with the states that hold much power over the country NOW?

[philosslayer]

54. Yes, but we aren't a democracy

We're a representative republic

[lunamagica]

59. That can e fixed

[baldguy]

42. A big reason why we see the problems we do is because we allow political minorities to run the show.

Their views should be heard, and they should be shown respect, but in the end minorities must bow to the will of the majority. Period. A democracy can not survive otherwise.

If you want to characterize that as "Go pound sand", so be it. They can go pound sand.

[yallerdawg]

52. The US Constitution help protect us from...

"the tyranny of the majority."

The mob can be awfully unruly.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. Isn't it fortunate that we've been saved from the tyranny of Hillary voters?

I can sleep peacefully now.

[baldguy]

63. As Bush's mob has & Trump's mob will show.

Forget about the "tyranny of the majority", the majority is not even getting a voice.

[Stuart G]

44. OH,,,,,REALLY? some are worried about small states??indeed.....

Get rid of the EC..let the total population determine the outcome......MY Goodness????

Small states....oohhhhhhh poor Wyoming...welllllllllll guess what...??

That state will still have 2 Senators, same as California..that was the deal...Senate has to pass the law too???

NOW....Hillary won by 2. 500,000..and counting..
FUCK the EC. ..

.count the votes, whoever has the most wins....EC was a mistake, kinda fake Parliament...get the picture??....

Small states still have 2 Senators..They will survive.......Now..change is unlikely..why? got to amend the Constitution, and that will take a lot of work..and that is very very unlikely...And...my opinion is the founding fathers of the U.S....whoever you want to name...would not believe this piece of trash that just got in.(orange hair..) .Include Lincoln if you wish. He had a pretty good brain, and could write and read a sentence......he would also agree........

[CajunBlazer]

46. I can think of serval states that need to "pound sand"

[LisaL]

47. If you only count votes in CA, NY and TX, then democrats would win without any trouble.

[Calista241]

48. If we abolished the EC, the parties would simply realign to reflect the fact

That only 5 or 6 states matter. You'd have a Dem party that always had the Presidency, and a Repub party that had 88 Senators and 380 seats in the house.

I'm not sure which model of America is better.

[BeyondGeography]

51. More like metro areas with rurals pounding sand

[LisaM]

53. But the problem is, it's failing us.

Instead of giving a voice to the smaller states, it's letting them drown out most of the population. I've always thought the EC was a good thing, but it was also designed as part of a series of checks and balances.

If giving the White House, the Senate, the House, and probably the Supreme Court all to the hard left, despite a huge loss in the popular vote, counts as exercising the right to checks and balances, color me confused.

If Bush, and now Trump, had acknowledged in the least that more people voted for the other person and set about governing accordingly, I wouldn't be shifting my opinion on this. But the fact is that it's being abused. It's not meant to give all the power to the losing side. I mean, do you think that's its purpose?

[matt819]

55. So instead

We have the tyranny of the minority. Either way we have a recipe for disaster.

[beaglelover]

56. Those small states still get 2 senators, same as the big states. POTUS should be determined by

popular vote only. Time to abolish the electoral college.

[kebob]

60. Ridiculous!

As has already been explained by others, without the EC, every vote would count, regardless of what state it was cast in. Think about it.

[TexasBushwhacker]

61. Do they add up to 270? Nope! n/t

[ecstatic]

64. Not true. All states would be up for grabs. nt