Comparing the good points of plan B with the bad points of plan A is all very well, but the downside of direct popular vote could – every once in a while – be utter chaos.

If they put such an amendment forth, I would be happy to see the results. I do 100% believe that such an amendment would be shot down by every single small state. Plus it needs to pass the Senate and the House first, which would not happen. I disagree with you, but I do fully understand your points and think that they are valid. I just think that if an election really was decided by popular vote you would discover that the candidates would focus almost exclusively on big states and big cities, because that is where the vast majority of people live. However, small states have needs that only people from small states understand. Asking them to give up their “disproportionate” influence over the presidency is the same as asking them to give up their disproportionate influence in the Senate. It will never happen. That is why I favor States splitting their electoral votes over giving up the electoral system. I think it is the best compromise and I think that it was wise for the Founding Father to create the electoral system to begin with.

You and I will have to agree to disagree, but I too would fully support any effort to have it brought to a ratification of the States and I think the small States would shoot it down with tremendous opposition.

I’m from Maryland, a rather small state in comparison to the larger electoral rich neighbors in the area. However, even I support an electoral college change despite residing in a tiny state. To be fair, Maryland’s views at large tend to be shared by those in other solid blue states like New York and New Jersey.

I support such an amendment or abolition of the existing electoral college system because I actually want my vote to stand for something. Wouldn’t the folks in the Midwest states as you mentioned want their voices heard as well on an equal footing with every other voter in the United States? Or do they somehow want their voices heard on a greater level and via a greater unequal proportion than the more democratic 1 man 1 vote system? Because when you create a system where elections are more dependent on swing state votes than on the national popular vote, you are essentially offering what is tantamount to 2-3 votes per person in those swing states than you are to everyone else in other solid blue or red states…

In addition, a Constitutional Amendment is never going to happen because you need a good number of the “small” states to ratify it, but it is the small states that would lose out.

The reality is, when we go into that voting booth, we’re not just voting for one thing, we have a duty to participate in all of the options we have in front of us: Congress, State offices, Local offices, Governorships, propositions… look at your own state’s voting totals and look at how many more votes are cast for president compared to oter state wide choices. We don’t put a real value on the vote and the fact that more people voted for president 48 years ago than did today even though our country has grown in size dramatically.

A much more important thing would be to modernize our elections by moving them to a weekend or making them mulitple days long increasing access to the polls. In Palo Alto, CA there were 2 polling places within 3 blocks of one another. So, there were no lines. When I hear about 4 and 5 hour waits to vote in some areas, I’m stupified.

There’s more we can do to fix our elections than just throwing out the electoral college…

Something to think about.

The idea of an elected VP fascinates me. I’d never considered it before. The problem would arise that the President and Vice President need to work closely together and it’s possible that bitter rivals might be elected together. But then, as Ron pointed out (or as in memory with Kennedy and LBJ), that has been the case in the past and has not been impossible to work around.

A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

If a “republican” form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a “democratic” method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.

While we’re at it, in addition to giving strong consideration to abolishing the electoral college (which I don’t think will happen anytime soon for many reasons, not the least of which includes how complex and even more expensive campaigning would be for the candidates), after what we saw this year, we ought also to consider opening the popular vote to the V.P. as well as the Presidency. Why should the person standing next in line to be the leader of the free world be the choice of the candidate? I would think that in a rather enlightened and intelligent society, we should take the choice of second in line much more seriously. Thoughts?

We used to not even elect the President or VP, the Congress did. And the VP was the guy who came in 2nd!

We used to not even elect our Senators, they were chosen by state legislatures (changed by the 17th amendment).

But while there is precedent for changing our election procedures, I don’t see it happening!

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 21 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com