In my view it's bad enough that someone can lose the popular vote and still be president; the winner-take-all method used by 48 states just pushes it over the line into an oligarchic abomination. In theory, a candidate could win the popular vote by a 1% margin in only 14 states of the larger states,lose everywhere else and still be president. While I understand the reason for it's existence, the way it works is very corrupt and in need of serious reform.
Why should the electoral college be any different. The popular vote should elect the President. It would be harder to corrupt the process than a handful of selected individuals that can vote any way they please and just sat to hell with what the people in my state want. Just another group of corrupt politicians at that point.
I honestly believe that the elections would truly be more fair if the electoral votes went by majority of each county rather than the entire state as a whole because than the minorities in a partisan state are not really counted, that goes for any party, Republican or Democrat, it really captures the true opinion
Yes, the Electoral College should be reformed. There is a disconnect somewhere between the Electoral College and the people they represent. There is universal misunderstanding as to how the Electoral College is elected and exactly what process they follow in making their decision. Perhaps what is really needed is to educate the public on what exactly is the Electoral College, how are the voters selected, and what process do they follow. People are always most likely to condemn something they do not fully understand. Sometimes all it takes to rectify the matter is get out there and explain to the people.
The Electoral College, in its day, served its purpose when communication between states took weeks and the voting populace was determined by property ownership. In today's literate and lightning-fast society, the Electoral College has no place. If the popular vote doesn't determine a presidential election, then each state should have votes divided equally instead of a winner-take-all system. The Electoral College system as it is should be replaced. Unfortunately, it will take a constitutional amendment to reform the Electoral College, a monumental task in and of itself that takes years to accomplish.
The electoral college forces presidents to only focus on swing states. As a Californian, I feel like my vote is wasted no matter what I vote because Democrats always win. I'm also an Obama supporter by the way. Some critics would say that changing to a popular vote will force candidates to only focus on the big states and neglect smaller states. This is just not true because two people from different states have an equal chance of choosing a president.
Sometimes we tend to think just because something is the way it is now, that's the way it should always be - particularly if it s something very difficult or time-consuming to change. I believe the electoral college, though based on popular vote, could use a little bit of tweaking to better reflect the popular vote. As a country that prides ourselves on being the best, shouldn't we always be looking for ways to better ourselves and strive for continuous improvement, especially in our democratic process of presidential election?
The electoral college is a system that works. Yes, it means that people only focus on the swing states and yes, it means that power is often disproportionate. But I feel as though if it was reformed or removed, then candidates would only focus on areas of high population which is no better than the current situation. They would spend all the time they spend in Ohio in NYC instead.
I do not believe the electoral college should be reformed, rather I would like to see it abolished. I believe every single vote should count and the best way to do that is to switch over to a popular vote system. I think this would be an easy change and I think we should do that, rather than try to fix the broken system.