I'm all for keeping the electoral college as along as we can't

[Skidmore]

be certain that the popular vote is being collected and accounted honestly. That's all I wanted to say.

[NoOneMan]

1. You have 50 states doing their own things, with different systems and unique rules

Not only is the popular vote not being accounted for, its being manipulated and suppressed. Hell, even a hurricane can suppress turnout. Its hardly worth paying attention to.

Proportional allocation of electoral votes is an infinitely better idea than letting hurricanes decide elections

[Stargazer09]

3. Yes

I think there should be a national standard for how elections are run. Maybe something like Oregon's vote-by-mail system, where there's an actual paper ballot and no chance of voter suppression at polling places.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

4. We have the same in WA. State and we have a receipt,

a strip torn from the ballot that identifies our ballot so it can always be tracked down.
It's so much more comfortable to sit down at the kitchen table with our family, go
over everything, look info up on the computer and then drink a toast and mail in our ballots
the next day.

[NoOneMan]

5. Can you take it back and get a refund

Excuse, this president didn't work as advertised.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

8. hahaha...

[Stargazer09]

2. I agree

Until we as a country start fighting for honest elections (verified paper trails, no more secret software issues, etc.), the EC helps protects us from widespread fraud.

It's not perfect, but I think it helps.

[liberalmuse]

6. I'm sick of The South deciding elections.

States with smaller populations have just as much representation in the electoral college and in the Senate as states like NY. I don't think that is right. I think the "weight" ought to be adjusted. And not necessarily so the largely populated states can then do what The South and bible belt are doing - but the system as it stands is grossly unfair.

[exboyfil]

7. Compromise

Do it like NE and MA. Each state by congressional district. We could argue about the bonus 2 for winning the state. I would really hate to have a nationwide recount. We are still a collection of 50 states so a certain nod should be given to that fact.

Other major democracies that does not directly elect their chief executive (Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Australia, and Canada). Mexico has direct election with a Tribunal deciding the validity of the election. France has a direct election with run off to ensure a majority. The President has the right to name the Prime Minister who is the actual head of the government. The two appear to split power with the President filling most of the roles of our President (foreign policy and defense).

We do need to do something about the electoral college. Having both candidates focusing on just a few states is not good.

[longship]

9. I agree with this compromise.

It is very easy to do -- no constitutional amendment necessary. (There's no way to get such an amendment through 3/4 of the states anyway.) Each state can decide how to allocate the EV's -- no federal intervention necessary.

BTW, altogether eliminating the EC would be devastating for the small states. A presidential candidate would never show up in NV!

[exboyfil]

10. No state wants to be the first to disarm

but if you could get states to partner (like California with Texas and Arizona for example) to go together, then maybe it can get agreement at the state level.

[hvn_nbr_2]

11. If we elected the president by nationwide popular vote...

every Cruella Harris from every wingnut hamlet from Alligator Swamp, Florida to Moose Breath, Alaska and from Desert Rat, California to Lobster Snot, Maine would be certifying millions of extra votes for "Full of Mitt" Romney.

Disclaimer: No offense intended to any of those states (I'm from one of them) and AFAIK none of those town names actually exist.