However simply eliminating it and going with raw popular vote would reverse where we are today. Right now, it is fundamentally he who has the biggest area wins. Eliminating the EC would basically say OK, the coastal areas and Dallas and Houston get to pick the winner.

We need something that more closely represents all the people, the low population areas as well as the high density areas.

no matter where they happened to live, had an equal vote -- instead of giving extra weight to the votes of people in low population states.

We would still be stuck with a Senate that will always do that. This would only affect the Electoral College.

Screw over California?

than let them freely vote with their conscience.

The person they are supposed to vote for should be the only one to cut them loose.

I don't want my vote to support some trojan-horse elector.

someone out of office like Trump.

There are more small states than large, after all.

The Electoral college, howsomever, is screwn . Raitos are way out of whack , prone to errors! ! ! ! Better we should simplify the "electors" into a role of reporting the actual vote totals from each state to the Fed. government , and making them responsible for the state count being up to standard?
Give then the authourity, when necessary, to enlist (many) suitable workers from the Federal Government to carry this out. Think of it as "in-service training" in democracy!

that sparsely populated areas get to tell the majority of the nation's voters, "screw you, we're going to overrule your majority"? That makes far less sense in my opinion . It doesn't matter where you live, if you're voting for the best possible candidate, and not making it a popularity contest, the majority of voters should prevail. It's bad enough that sparsely populated states get two Senators that equal the same number given to large population areas. A state with 800,000 residents should have the same political weight as a state with 40 million residents?

This sop to the post Civil War slave states is archaic and anti-democratic, and opens up catastrophic possibilities such as we're experiencing this very moment. The electoral college must be abolished. My two cents.

have to get by on the same number of Senators as entire States with barely 1/3 that size of a population?

Just because a small amount of people decide to live in Western Kansas instead of California is THEIR choice to do so but shouldn't influence the outcome of an election.

One candidate in a state getting one million votes shouldn't LOSE those votes to their opponent who got one million and one votes. The EC would claim that the State went overwhelmingly for the candidate with one million and ONE votes which is BS and a LIE.

You'll still have your mayor, state rep, rep, and senator to take care of your local concerns

Getting rid of the electorial college with its slavery/confederacy roots is way overdue.

We just need to get states to agree to cast their electoral vote for the winner of the popular vote.

and republicans will take every advantage they can get. An amendment is the only way that the states can't mess with it.

republicans will just have to rely on their ususal bag of tricks: voter suppression and intimidation, misinformation, and not counting ballots.

who the hell know what his appointees- cabinet, vP, justices- might do. Put it in writing.

My fourth recommendation is that the Congress adopt a Constitutional amendment to provide for direct popular election of the President. Such an amendment, which would abolish the Electoral College, will ensure that the candidate chosen by the voters actually becomes President. Under the Electoral College, it is always possible that the winner of the popular vote will not be elected. This has already happened in three elections, 1824, 1876, and 1888. In the last election, the result could have been changed by a small shift of votes in Ohio and Hawaii, despite a popular vote difference of 1.7 million. I do not recommend a Constitutional amendment lightly. I think the amendment process must be reserved for an issue of overriding governmental significance. But the method by which we elect our President is such an issue. I will not be proposing a specific direct election amendment. I prefer to allow the Congress to proceed with its work without the interruption of a new proposal.

Nothing but a RIP OFF to voters and will suppress voting IMO.

Give their vote a proportional weight based on the population of their State divided by the total US population divided by 2 times 100. Each California Senator would have an approximate 6.25 share of 100 votes. Each Wisconsin Senator would have an approximate .781 share of 100 votes. The people would have fair and proportionate representation and the math would be simple. Note: The State and US population numbers I used are approximate, rounded, and used to illustrate the concept only.

Of course this in one sense would create a second body with proportional representation but, I could be argued that since the races are State-wide, the representation would be more true to the wishes of the entire State and not subject to regionalization or Gerrymandering and therefore a superior body retaining some of the superior status of the Senate. The Senate would/could become more of a "Council of Adjunct State Governors". Or something like that. Anyway, aint never gonna happen but, a person can dream, can't he?

and more Republican seats are up for reelection than Democratic. For something to grow one needs to plant a seed in fertile ground.

The Electoral College is outdated, every other country that holds fair elections goes by the popular vote.

is antithetical to democracy. Each state has the right to determine how its electoral votes are distributed. Demand each state have a referendum on the ballot that will determine how the electoral votes get sorted out.

It will be easier to get rid of future trumps.

Fat chance that it will go anywhere but it’s encouraging to see action being taken this early into the new House of Representatives.

They are both worthwhile goals for the bucket list.

One problem is that it rewards ALL electoral votes from a state no matter how many voters actually bother going to the polls. Great voter turnout in New York? 29 EVs. Shitty turnout in Florida? 29 EVs. That is ridiculous.

The other problem is the winner-take-all system that the vast majority of the states means my Democratic vote in Texas is meaningless, as is the Republican vote in California. When we're voting for the highest office in the land, shouldn't ALL votes have some electoral weight?

NPR did an analysis and, in theory, a candidate could win the Electoral College with just 23% of the popular vote.

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote

It's also the only way republican presidents got elected

"The amendments are unlikely to pass since they require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and then must be ratified by three-fourths of states.

Why? Because the Electoral College gives the small states..(those with far less population..like Wyoming, and North Dakota)..far more power than would exist if the amendments passed....Saying it another way. Wyoming and North Dakota are not likely to give up their power to elect the President to states with a large population..

..While it seems like the fair thing to do, Republicans in Wyoming and North Dakota are not fair...(The small states)....And that is the truth..OH>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.............REPUBLICANS DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT BEING FAIR..........................................

I also like this 4th paragraph from another story about this from CNN:..................................................

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/constitutional-amendments-steve-cohen-electoral-pardon/index.html
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Calls to abolish the Electoral College intensified in the aftermath of the 2016 election, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the presidency when Trump won the majority of the Electoral College. Similar calls were made in 2000, when former Vice President Al Gore also won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College to George W. Bush. Both losing candidates were Democrats.

and does not get even 1 vote in the remaining 39 states that person is the next president. As far as the Congress goes, the states with a small population controls the Senate and the states with the largest populations control the House. Not always, but pretty much so.

How can you be a group of United states if individual states has the power to create laws that are in polar opposites of other states?

And the country should have never allowed states with such disproportionate populations. States should be less about land mass than they are about population. States such has California and Texas (just to name a few) should be made into smaller states, while states like Wyoming and Montana should be combined with other states.