Election Reform ~ Should the Electorial Votes be replaced by individual votes?

Due to the recent problems with elections should the electorial votes in the Presidential Election be replaced by a national system of individual votes! If no, why would you believe each individual person isn't entitled to have a voice?

Public Comments

1. I think it should be based on a majority rules out of all Americans. Honestly I don't understand how we can really be a government by the people for the people if the people have to rely on someone else to vote in their best interests....
2. Yes, yes a thousand times yes..
3. Can you imagine how corrupt elections would become and how many pockets would be lined? California and the east coast would decide our leaders and the rest of us would be screwed. No, even with its faults the electoral vote is the only way to go.
4. Yah, if you want New York and California telling us who is president. Look the system is designed this way because the founders knew that some states would have millions more people then others. I live in Idaho, a state of a couple million people. California has about 50 mil. I wouldn't like the idea of knowing that California has more power in the voting system because they have more people. Oh and each person does have a voice. The problem with what you suggest is outlined above. The beauty of our system is that the bigger states aren't the only states with the power in the elections. Together Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Idaho and Montana have 27 electoral votes. In this day and age those states and votes are critical. Go your route and most candidates won't even need those states votes if they win a couple of the major states.
5. No. The reason why this would not work is because then politicians would only cater to states and cities with larger populations and at the very least put more rural areas on the back burner when it comes to their needs. Replacing the electoral system with a popular vote does SOUND like a good idea on the surface, but it would not be fair to those people that live in rural or less populated areas of the countries.
6. "The Electoral College, administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is not a place, it is a process that began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President. Read more about how the terms "Elector" and "Electoral College" came into usage." the founding fathers saw the inequities as to population of certain states as opposed to those who are greatly populated. to avoid the less populated states( most rural) being held captive to the more populated states, the system they devised to level the opportunities for a fair representation of the majority of the population was very democratic. the majority of states and their people have no problems with voting. maybe those states should seek advise from them on how to conduct a simple voting process.
7. No. The entire purpose of the electoral college is to protect smaller states. The U.S. is a republic. Our founding fathers wanted control in the hands of the state with the federal government only involved on a limited basis. Not the way it is today.
8. well we do have the technology for a direct democracy , and I'm willing to put it to a vote , and willing to go with whatever the out come is
9. NO and I'm not going to explain my answer.
10. I can tell you why a national popular vote is a bad idea in one word: RECOUNT. Suppose a nationwide vote comes down to a half-percent difference. How are you going to recount 60 million votes? My plan is this: The number of electors is based on the number of Congressional districts and Senators each state has. So require each elector tied to a congressional district to vote for whoever won the district. The electors tied to senate seats vote for whoever won the state. This way, you get a nationwide election. Candidates have to fight for each individual district, so they have to pay attention to the concerns of each district. They couldn't just campaign in the 25 largest population centers and win the election. (Over 50% of the people in America live in the 25 largest metro areas.) It would also help if you could eliminate gerrymandered districts, to make more districts competitive in the national election. Gerrymandering: the process by which the representatives get to choose their voters.
11. Clinton and the left are communist...... Obama is a Muslim AND YOU ON THE LEFT OWN DEFEAT. RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY. BUSH LOVES CHINESE COMMIES. BUSH IS PAYING OFF THE NORTH KOREAN COMMIES.
12. I think any of the following proposals would be great: Congressional District method: allocate electoral votes by Congressional district and at-large. Maine and Nebraska have voters use one vote (both for the Congressional district and at-large tallies) but others have proposed that voters should get 1 vote for the Congressional district and 2 votes for the at-large tally (something I favor) and the winner of the district would get an electoral vote but the 2 at-large electoral votes would go to the top 2 tickets of the at-large vote. Proportional method: allocate electoral votes by state, using a threshold of 5-10% to get electoral votes. Electoral votes would be allocated according to each candidate's popular vote. If any electoral votes are unallocated, these could go to the winning candidate in the state or the largest remainders (provided a candidate's won electoral votes). I have a proposal where the Instant Runoff Vote would be used with proportional allocation. The House electoral votes are allocated proportionally to each candidate's 1st round votes. Any unallocated electoral votes would go to the winning candidate. The Senate electoral votes would go to the winner of the 1st round (if a candidate got an absolute majority) or the final round. If a candidate doesn't get an absolute majority of the electoral votes, there would be an instant runoff but only in the states where no candidate got an absolute majority of the 1st round votes. In the runoff, the electoral votes would be allocated winner-take-all (but only in the states involved in an instant runoff). The benefit is that all states would have the results of the 1st round and final rounds tallied. I don't think the electoral college should be abolished but reformed. Thanks!