[AT7Saluki]

Methinks perhaps the DBM knows something more than they're reporting?

[rightinthemiddle]

Ah, the Libs would love it. All they have to do is control the Ignorant Masses in the metropolitan areas.

Forget about small town/rural America.

This is the reason the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College!

[Friend_from_the_Frozen_North]

If I recall my High School Civics correctly, such a change would require a Constitutional Amendment and Ratification by 38 State Legislatures? States that have very little influence (with 3 to 5 electoral votes) on the National Elections would be very hesitant to surrender complete control to the will of the Inner City "Ignoratti"...

[okie01]

Their focus? How to better engineer the system...

How to better engineer the system...to aid the Democrats.

And, for sure, giving voter fraud a chance to have a nationwide impact would do the trick.

[socialismisinsidious]

Yeah sure why not....then no sheople would have to actually get their sorry fat butts off the couch to vote. NY and CA can pick our President and all the politician vote buying can be done there. Yeah, there's a plan only a liberal could love.

Anyone who proposes this has to be an idiot with an agenda aka: loony liberal.

[Maceman]

Why just get rid of the electoral college? Why not put the whole damn Constitution out of its misery and just elect a king to spread the wealth by popular vote, based on who has the dreamiest eyes?

In fact, why even bother with the popular vote? Maybe we should just have the UN General Assembly appoint a committee of international journalists and college professors to pick the new monarch?

[Ingtar]

Not just no, but hell no!

[frogjerk]

[Reagan Man]

Our Electoral College system is part of our republican form of representative government. Its one aspect of our Republic that makes the USA different from a pure democracy.

Liberals and socialists want to move America towards pure democracy and mob rule. NO THANKS!

[beezdotcom]

The Electoral College isn't perfect, but it certainly helps smooth out the problems in the current state-by-state voting.

The only way I would ever consider removing the EC is if a national election were handled by use of Instant Runoff Voting, and ballots were designed with a Robson Rotation method...but I don't see that ever happening.

[MileHi]

NO

[The Great RJ]

The Founding Fathers were very wise in creating the Electoral College as it gives certainty to the presidential election process. Imagine a close national election, perhaps one rife with voter fraud, the election of the President could be hung up in the courts for months if not years arguing about hanging chads etc. The odds that electors will not vote as directed by the popular election outcome in their state is not real issue. Some times the Electoral College, like in the 2000 election will elect a President who did not necessarily win the national popular vote, but since that is not our system it is also a non issue.

[Jaxter]

"The system is a relic of the early days of the republic.."

Kind of the same way they think of the 2nd Amendment.

[snarkytart]

They know that regardless of their polls, McCain still has an advantage in the electoral college. McCain can lose two Bush states..New Mexico, and Iowa, and still have 274 against Obama’s 264. Obama is in the position of trying to pluck VA or CO to win...they are traditionally RED states. Very difficult to do, no matter what Rasmussen and Gallup says.

[weegee]

Drive By Media hit squad.

If we counted the “popular vote” alone, we’d still be recounting the 2000 tally county by county, looking for irregularities.

The difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush was 0.51% (just over half of one percent) of the vote.

On the other hand, there would have been no “problems” in Ohio.

The media is worried sick the Obambi is going to lose the battleground states. Much easier just to push the numbers (98% support in some communities). With the electoral vote, it doesn’t matter that one candidate got 80% or 52% of the vote in a state or city.

But even with that, California outside of the large cities votes conservative.

[mysterio]

Is it time to scrap the Electoral College?

No.

[bestintxas]

Why settle on just the electoral college and go ahead and scrap the entire U.S. Constitution instead?

The liberal mind looks at ways to further its agenda, and when I read about altering the U.S. Constitution from the likes of MSNBC, it riles my blood to boiling.

Isn’t it sinful of us to support the law of this land when it is inconvenient?

[Antoninus]

Perhaps THIS explains why Obama is running ads in California and Massachusetts? They’re worried about the Electoral College, and are trying to run up big margins in the states that they feel they’ve got locked up?

[KarlInOhio]

...The system is a relic of the early days of the republic when electors were supposed to be independent agents exercising their judgment in choosing a presidential candidate from a list of several contenders.

Bunk. In some states the electors were selected by their state legislatures rather than by popular vote, but at no time were electors selected and told "do whatever you think is best". Just look at how the electors cast their votes. They go to their state capitals and each state sends its choices to Washington. If they were meant to be independent agents they would have traveled to Washington and voted there, along with any horse trading needed to get the votes. At no time did the electors (with a few exceptions of disloyal electors) cast votes other than how they were directed by either the people or the legislature.

[chris_bdba]

You folks can engineer all you want but without changing the constitution by allowing all 50 states to vote it will never change.

[adorno]

Is it time to scrap the Electoral College?

If the country was to do that, then it would be something that has to be decided on by the people, and then, the electoral college count would need to be used for that "referendum"; and the decision to scrap the college count would need to be, not just a majority decision, but a super-majority in the range of 66% to 75%.

Another possibility would be for the electoral college to be replaced by a larger college count. In that case, we should go to a county by county count in order to decide who gets the presidency. Thus, in order to win a county, a candidate would be expected to campaign in that county and anyone who doesn't would have to be disqualified from getting that county's "electoral" vote. That would make it very difficult for any one candidate to take a whole state or region for granted. Campaigns would be more expensive, but, hey, at least they would be fairer. There are many counties that might be "red" going into the "blue" count simply because they are part of the bigger "blue" state.