See my “Know More” blog at http://www.jeremygoodell.com.

Under the current electoral college system, even if a nominee receives a significant majority of the popular vote, that person may not be President unless 270 electoral college votes are received, and conversely, a President might be (and has been) elected with a minority of the popular vote – very arguably, a rather bizarre, unjust and unfair system.

Moreover, to better ensure the voice of independent members, and to help reduce the influence of big money lobbyists, the election of congressional representatives should be carried out as proportional representation, a system which has considerably increased the influence of democracy, and reduced large lobbyist interests in a number of other countries.

Lastly, it would be very interesting to undertake a review with the intention of determining how much taxpayer money could be saved if an entire layer of government – the state layer – were to be removed. Certainly, we might then have a chance at creating fairer and cheaper legal, health and education systems.

Each candidate’s party nominates a slate of electors for their party. If their candidate wins the highest number of votes in their state, that slate of electors is chosen to represent their state in the state capital in mid-December to officially cast their ballots. (The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which gives two votes to whoever wins the state and one to whoever wins each congressional district.)

The system was designed to produce a clear-cut winner, and has worked very well for the previous 55 Presidential elections. It balances the small states and the larger states, requiring candidates to campaign in all portions of the country.

And it’s not going to change anytime soon. Any state with less than 8 electoral votes would be stupid to vote for a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the EC, which would cede more power to California.

I see some making comments about our electoral system being outdated or something to those affects. This is so far from reality. First off, it is imperative to understand why or nation was founded and the concerns our Founding Fathers had. Our nation is not a pure democracy, we are a union of states held together by a small central government (or at least that was the intent). We are a democratic republic following a federalist type of government. Again, this is so basic yet most people don’t understand it. In our nation the states hold most of the power and the states elect the President. This grants power to each of the states and helps prevent a single state or handful of states to dictate policy for the entire nation.

I think people need to educate themselves more on this topic as there is little intelligent conversation about it happening. This is an important topic and we are failing ourselves and the future of our nation when we do not educate future generations on it.

God Bless America

Candidate A receives 100,000,000 of those votes but he only has a high school education and likes to party but he has a grasp on how the Nation should be managed and how it should use diplomacy in its foreign affairs. The people love him.

Candidate B receives 50,000,000 of those votes but he has a masters degree from a state university, likes to go to bed before Leno or Letterman, and he has an idea of how the Nation should be managed and is not very strong in exerting diplomacy in its foreign affairs. The people like him.

Now, the E.C. would be charged with voting for and electing the next president. Clearly, Candidate A won the popular vote and is better qualified as a manager but because he lacks a degree the E.C. would probably elect Candidate B as president, yes?

And this is why I am against the E.C. deciding who our next president will be in this election and future elections. They will only elect whom they believe will be the “right” person (Candidate B) to be president of the country even though the people clearly stated they wanted the Candidate A as their president.

The E.C. should be abolished and replace with the popular vote. If there is a mathematical tie, only then should we allow the full Congress decide the issue on our behalf. The statistical tie is b.s. because statistics can be manipulated once another person sees and handles that original data. Statistics is an art and is not absolute whereas mathematics is a science and is absolute.

The Electoral College is a political institution established by Constitution. Keep in mind that during this time there was tension between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists as to how much power the states should be granted. A compromise was made that citizens vote for electors and those electors constitute the Electoral College. Each state gets at least 3 electors and more depending on the population of the state. The Electoral College therefore, has 538 electors in all and 270 is needed to win the presidency. Let’s get into the reasons why the Electoral College was created.

The forefathers created the Electoral College in order to have an electoral mechanism in which the most qualified candidate would be selected and not necessarily the most popular one. Popular election was seen as impractical. The size of the country and the state of its communication and transportation at the time would preclude holding and effectively monitoring a national campaign. There have been cases in U.S. history in which a candidate would win the popular vote but lose the elections due to not winning the Electoral College. Arguably this has produced favorable results but it is easy to argue the opposite. Of course the most recent case of this happening was in the 2000 elections which brought more attention to the Electoral College and created a mass revival of the debate as to whether the Electoral College should be abolished or not.

An argument against keeping the Electoral College is simply, that it can go against what the public wants. Fairness also comes into question because it gives an advantage to bigger states because of their larger population and also an advantage to smaller states due to overrepresentation (no matter how small, a state automatically gets 3 electors). States that are neither large or small have a lesser advantage. Another argument against having the Electoral College is the fact that it has a bias lean to it. Keep in mind that during the time of the forefathers, parties did not exist. They saw it as divisive and were against it by all means so they created it with the assumption that the Electoral College would be neutral. As parties developed later on, the Electoral College was no longer always neutral. The Electoral College also discourages third parties or minor parties and they acquire lack of representation as the Electoral College operates on a winner take all system..

An argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College is as follows: The forefathers created it with the intentions of having the most qualified candidate as president. For example, almost all politicians at the time knew George Washington was the most qualified one to become president. The forefathers wanted to ensure that within this brand new and fragile country, it was direly important to have the most qualifed one as president (Washington) and not the most popular one (i.e. the one with the more celebrity status). With that said, an argument is that the American population in general may still not be knowledgeable enough, do not take the time, or do not have the time enough to educate themselves on the candidates positions and therefore, still may not choose the most qualified one. Honestly, how many people have actually read the records of all the candidates prior to the 2008 primary elections instead of relying on reporters to pick and choose what is said to the public? Another argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College is counter to the earlier argument against keeping the Electoral College and that is that it discourages third parties. Why would this be a good thing? Because a way to get votes in a multi party system is to focus more on the minority party which is not central to the general will. In two party systems, minority will can either be adopted or not into the party foundation depending if it is seen as important issue within the country. With that said, two party systems equate to a more centrist society. Also multiparty systems gives way for extreme parties to gain more of a foothold in politics which would otherwise, not be adopted into a platform of the two parties in a two party system.

So should the Electoral College be abolished or not? I guess that is a matter of personal opinion.

First this is a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY…lets get that straight.

The electoral college helps preserve the republic by having a better vote for the Presidential office, as a balance of power.

Look at this election…with organized efforts (fraudulent) via ACORN and other groups, along with a vast array of socialist leaning indoctrinated students on the west coast….etc etc. do we really want fanatics having such an opportunity through a popular vote!

Look at nations with a popular vote…they are poorly run and inefficient.

I am all for keeping the Electoral College to help save our REPUBLIC.