[MrBambaLaMamba]

No.

[Busko]

The Goosesteppers want it their way. mob rule. These educated morons need to get a life!!

[KarlInOhio]

If anything, we should duplicate Maine and Nebraska’s method. That way vote fraud at one location could only affect 3 electoral votes instead of all the EVs of the state or even the entire country’s winning popular vote.

[Stosh]

These pinheads operate on the assumption that if the electoral college had been abolished, Hillary would have won. But even if her popular vote lead does stand up, it’s irrelevant from the standpoint that had the election been set up so that popular vote was the deciding factor, both camps would have run a different campaign.

Most folks now see that Trump ran the smarter campaign - it’s not a lucky accident that he took Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania - that was something they strategized, and that’s one of several cases where the donkeycrats were asleep at the switch. Were the rules different, the Trump strategy would’ve been different - and if they pantsed Hillary and her minions under the present rules, there’s a good chance they could’ve done so under different ground rules as well.

[mulligan]

No.

[myerson]

It is simple: If we have no Electoral College, then we are no longer a Republic.

[TBP]

No, but if states want to go to the district system, they can and should. (It’s the system used n Maine and Nebraska.) It would just make the EC even more GOP.

[ought-six]

No. The Electoral College was instituted by the Founders (talk about some smart guys!) so that the large states would not become tyrannical towards the small states.

[ConservaTeen]

No, because all states should be involved in the election...really do you think Iowa would be visited if there wasn’t an Electoral College? Des Moines is the largest city...and I think it has about 250,000 citizens. I might be wrong about the population.

[SE Mom]

Nooooooo...it should NOT be abolished.

Besides, getting it done will be damned near impossible.

Smaller states aren’t going to agree, nor should they.

We’re the United STATES of America, not the United People.

It’s hard enough to keep corruption at bay now, a popular vote would be corrupt out of the gate.

[Malsua]

NO!

It means that a cheating vote anywhere affects the total.

California could have had 150% of the total registered voters registered as voting for Hillary and it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. Eliminate the electoral college and all the sudden all that cheating in blue states really starts to matter.

[Yaelle]

No. The popular vote is based on all kinds of stupidity.

Fact: Hillary Clinton was a proven (though uncharged) criminal with dozens of felonies obvious to anyone with a brain.

Fact: That fact was never once directly stated — or even wondered — by mainstream media (except for Sean Hannity).

Fact: Trump voters were bright enough to seek out original info AGAINST CONVENTIONAL WISDOM and despite being called racists, and were able to discern fact #1.

Look at a map of how states voted this election. We can’t decide our President based on ignorance and propaganda.

[Mark was here]

No.

[ViLaLuz]

No.

[gogeo]

“Outdated” is not an argument.

[gogeo]

The EC acts as a firewall for election fraud.

Regardless of how many illegals vote in CA, for example, it counts for no more than 50%+1.

In fact, if there's anything that needs to be changed, it's the practice of counting illegals in the census for the purpose of apportioning representation.

[Rashputin]

No. And the 17th Amendment has to be repealed, too.

Then maybe we can fight our way back to what the Founding Fathers established and left for us.

[cynwoody]

OK, Professor. Let's compromise.

Do away with the electors and tally the vote by congressional district. The winner of a state's CDs gets the state's two extra votes, except in the case of a tie in CDs, in which case the winner of the state's popular vote gets its extra votes.

Such a system offers four advantages:

1. No electors, hence no faithless electors.
2. Recounts would be limited to close CDs.
3. Fraud would be firewalled to the CDs in which it occurs. Stealing a CD only steals the CD. Excess stolen votes don't contribute further to stealing the state.
4. Urban cesspools in such states as NY, IL, and CA would have their influence contained.

If we go by the way California's House races turned out, Trump probably carried 15 of California's 53 CDs and would have received 15 of its 55 electoral votes.

California's House races 2016
The green one up north went D. The green one by San Diego went R (Darrel Issa's district)

[trisham]

No. God gave us the Founding Fathers and brought us to this country for a reason. We were blessed with a miraculous opportunity then and would be fools to throw it all away now out of arrogance and stupidity.

[motor_racer]

I think that we need a law stating that no person, who wishes to engage in any activity whatsoever, may be required to present more identification than that which is required to vote.