Here's a little history lesson.

When the Constitution was first ratified, states were allowed to count 3/5 of their slaves as population for purposes of representation in congress. In those days, each state got 1 rep for every 40,000 people. This was a compromise to give disproportionate representation to the slave states.

The electoral college was built on representation, not population, so that the 3/5 rule would also help the slave states have a greater say in the presidential election.

To me, maintaining the electoral college (which tends to favor the Democrats for who I usually vote for in presidential elections) is an outdated reminder that the side that won the civil war didn't take the spoils of war...namely dispensing with this ridiculous compromise.

There are other arguments on the issue, to be sure, but since the reason for its inception is no longer valid, I say the whole process isn't valid either.

---

I would be in favor of he change I have heard talk about going to a straight popular vote since the 70s. It never gets anywhere. There have been 4 times were a President lost the popular vote and still won the Electoral Vote. The most recent time was when Bush defeated Gore in 2000.

There have been other major changes in voting procedures. Once upon a time people did not vote for their US Senators. They voted for their state representatives who in turn voted for the Senators.

---

The electoral college was (and is) a way to check the power of the majority.

Everyone remembers from grade school civics class that the "separation of powers" idea was a core part of the Constitution because of the problems that ensue when a particular part of government (state v. federal, legislative v. executive v. judicial) has too disproportionate a share of the power to govern.

What people forget, however, is that the founders also considered "the popular majority" a power that needed to be limited. In general, it is why they went with a republic rather than a pure one-man/one-vote democracy. In specific, it is why they did not want direct election of senators and why they wanted an electoral college determining the President.

They believed in representative government, but they also believed a workable/sustainable representative government had to incorporation multiple modes of representation. They chose a bicameral legislature because they wanted to tension that came with one house determined by the majority of the total population (the House of Representatives) and one where the differences between states were represented without regard to relative population size (the Senate). They needed a popular-vote determined House to check the power of the patricians/elite, but they also needed a non-popular-vote determined Senate and President to check the power of ordinary people/the mob. They saw what was starting to happen in France (and, even more so, with what had happened in Britain with Jacobinism, the Gordon riots, etc).

We as a nation, of course, have spent the last 75 years increasing the possibilities for the "tyranny of the majority" and the rise of unchecked federal power, and now approach our elections and the rest of "we the people" governance. Instead a government designed to limit the power of anyone (or any type of division) getting bigger, we now are all about "empowerment." Instead of looking emphasizing solutions based on how they take away power that a group has or might accumulate, we now emphasize solutions based on how they increase the power of one group over another.

In short, it took us a bit longer, but we now believe and approach governance the way the French peasantry and "ordinary people" did c. 1789, not the way Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and company did c. 1789.

Unfortunately. As a nation, we have forgotten that a 51%/49% outcome means almost half of the population doesn't want what the "winner" offers, regardless of how that winner is chosen; and that means we ought to restrain ourselves in our fervor to pursue and use the power of the majority to impose our will on the minority. Or, to put it another way, there are times when "we, the 50.001% people," ought not to be allowed to get "what we want" vis-a-vis the 49.999% people, any more than the 49.999% ought to be allowed to tramp on the 50.001%.

If either Sanders or Trump is elected, I fully expect those wishing for the popular vote determining the president will finally get their wish. They are both riding the populist wave, and encouraging it (albeit for different reasons). If Clinton is, it is less likely, since she's more an old-fashioned "Senatorial" type.

Ironically, the result will likely be that even as the some of patricians get tossed out or tossed under the guillotine), others (call them the "inside the Beltway" people) will get more power than ever.

And the possibility of a Robispierre and Committee on Public Safety arising in accordance with the populist will gets greater all the time.

---

Thank you Professor. Even in grade school I always felt the Elite, the Southern Gentry, didn't trust the Boston, Philly and NYC urban dwellers to make an "informed decision" and thus they blocked their ability to elect the President. They might lose 1 or 2 states to the rabble but they would make a stand in more states in the South. 4 of 5 Presidents were from Virginia.

I can't imagine either party wanting to change to popular vote.

---

The whole system is flawed. Our representation government doesn't represent the needs of the common people. The government is completely corrupt, purchased, and run by the billionaires. The "electoral college" is very low in priority of our country's problems.

---

I would be the first to agree that gerrymandering is a much worse problem, but because of the electoral college, the practical result is that in many states, a minority vote (Dem in WY, for example) is a waste, because as long as there is no chance for the dems to win that state, it becomes irrelevant, and the entire election is generally decided by a few "battleground" states.

The electoral college being a "check" on the majority has no basis in "check" of powers of the three branches talked about in the constitution. It was a compromise to keep free states from declaring slavery illegal by offering disproportionate representation to the slave states.

The Constitution itself is a check against the majority...it protects the rights of individuals despite attempts by the majority to crush those rights.

---

I don't think the electoral college itself is bad, but I do believe it needs to change. States should not be able to give 100% of their electorals to the person who wins the state. Each candidate should be awarded electoral's off the percentage of the vote they receive. with the odd remainder going to the winner overall. there are states republicans barely campaign in because they know the state will go democrat, and the same goes the otherway. I believe this would get candidates campaigning in areas they avoid today because they would have a chance to get votes they never would have before. Republicans would not avoid CA if they could walk away with 25 or so of those electorals.

---

It's also a huge factor behind maintaining our two-party system, and everything bad (and good) that comes with it. Given the disapproval rating in all branches of our government, how many people do you think would vote third party if one vote for a third party was worth the same as one vote for a democrat/republican, instead of nothing?

Very well could be missing something, but how would this be functionally different than a straight up popular vote, if the number of electoral votes are based on population? The difference should be negligible at best.

Negligible or not, in 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush.

---