I say absolutely. We should be electing the president strictly by a popular vote. And who knows, maybe with the concept of an individual's vote really truly mattering, it'll finally be the majority of Americans bothering to pull that lever rather than the minority every 4 years.

And does anyone think that it could genuinely possibly happen within, say, the next 20-25 years?

Being Australian, this doesn't directly affect me - but I've always been interested... Is there a reason why a candidate gets all the votes if they win a state? Or is that just how it is?

Not that our system is superior or anything, I just understand it

No, it shouldn't. Despite its flaws, it still serves its purpose of giving the rural states at least some say. Remember, that was the purpose of having two legislative bodies; the house of representatives would be divided up by population, and the senate equally. That was agreed upon when the nation was formed in order to protect the interests of smaller states, and I don't see why that shouldn't include electing a president.

Even when a vote in Wyoming is worth four times as much as a vote in California?

I know we've had this thread before--I won't merge but I'll link it up in here when I find it.

EDIT: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2154

Most of the reasons for the electoral college are outdated now, such as fearing regional candidates. A popular vote would not be perfect, instead of focusing on important states, candidates can focus on dense population areas, but it would be more democratic.

I don't really know how I feel about this.

It absolutely should. The idea that a candidate can receive the most votes and lose the election is insane. I understand why it was created, but it needs to go.

This thread should be linked in here as well.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=50320

Honestly, I think they should be merged, but whatever.

Hmmm... I don't think I would mind seeing it go.

I would at least like to see each state dividing up its electoral votes proportionally to the way the people voted, but that would have to be done to every state at once since it would be a huge exlpoit to one party or the other depending on what states adopt it earlier and which ones hold out.

I guess I found the wrong one. If you want to merge, go ahead.

Goddamnit.

My apologies, folks.

YES.

The system is antiquated. I can see how it would have been a problem generations ago with cadidates only visiting well populated cities. I do. These days it doesn't matter - we have TV and the internet, anything and everything you need to know about a candidate is readily available to anyone, no matter where they live. So there won't be huge rallys in nowhereville, but who CARES where the president GOES? You're not voting on their traveling abilities.

I'd get rid of it along with 2 term presidencies.
I'd be happier seeing a one term at a time limit and the term lasting for 6 years. Give the President the incentive to leave a legacy behind them rather than spending the first four years in office making sure they get re-elected.

The electoral college is outdated and in states like Massachusetts - where one party seems to dominate the elections (yes, I know we've had Republican Governors, but MA is a typically Democrat for President state) - would give more chance for people in other parties to feel their vote counts.

How many times have I voted in this state and felt like: it's not really that important because of the state I live in? I can't really count.

So, let me ask... If the entire STATE of Wyoming has less voting power than Mesa, AZ, why should anybody even bother to care about Wyoming? If Wyoming has less say over the very executive power that will govern it than any moderately-sized city in the US, how is that fair?

I don't have any problem with people in Wyoming having more say at an individual level than, say, people in California. If anything, the problem is that there are so many states in that part of the nation (Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota) that are so sparsely populated. Maybe it would have been better to combine them all to begin with, in which case they would have fewer senators between them, but still have those two guaranteed votes.

How is it fair that these tiny states get to drive the agricultural policy and reap massive subsidies while California's farmers get significantly fewer perks? The very existence of corn based ethanol would imply that these small states do not use their disproportionate representation for the good of the country.

The problem is, you're looking at the COUNTRY as individual states. The president doesn't head up individual states. The president heads up the entire COUNTRY as a whole. Geography and Location shouldn't have anything to do with it. 1 person, 1 vote, 1 point. That's the only way to make it fair.

Maybe it was more important before, to give candidate incentive to visit and explain their positions on the lesser populated areas, lest they not be properly informed. Now, it's easy to be informed, no matter where you are. So no one's vote should count any more or less than anyone else's.

I think you kind of answered your own question here. I mean, had the Colorado/Wyoming border been one degree further north, you'd have Cheyenne in Colorado, making Wyoming's population even lower. The geographical requirements are awfully arbitrary.

I guess I should also add that the challenge of reaching out to voters in rural areas is going down, especially thanks to the Internet.

The agricultural policy is more a result of Iowa going first every year in the primaries, causing lawmakers to pander to them in hopes of getting their votes sometime in the future.

I would say that Iowa is another example of disporportionate representation.