Would you wish to amend the Constitution of the United States to eliminate the electoral college? Does it still serve a purpose? Or would direct election be better?

No, gotta keep it.

It serves to balance elections so that the largest few cities in America don't make all the rules.

--cheers

How does the electoral college keep Portland for example from dominating the electoral result for Oregon?

Don't the most electoral votes go to the states with the major cities?

I like the electoral college because a state or region doesn't get to much influence if it has no votes for the other major party. During the pre-Jim Crow era the South would have had an inordinate amount of influence because such a high percentage of people always voted for the Democratic Party.

A handful of large cities could swing all of the elections.

It takes more than a handful of electors to win an election.

I read somewhere, that the number of electors is equal to the number of representitives...dunno if thats accurate or not. If thats true, than I guess we sould ditch the house of reps, and keep the senate...because the house doesn't help balance anything right?

--cheers

The number of electors a state gets is equal to the sum of it's House and Senate members, so there are altogther 535 electors. That extra two votes per state helps balance the equation just a tad in favor of the smaller states, which I think is a good thing. I might be open to splitting the total proportionately per state, but I want to keep the Electoral College even if we do tweak it a bit.

I don't like the electoral college. It makes it possibile for someone to lose the popular vote and win the presidency. That doesn't make any sense.


What do you mean? The people who vote in the minority votes don't count, that's bad. I think this makes conservatives in liberal states and liberals in conservative states not want to vote because their vote won't count towards electing the president.

It doesn't and is not supposed to

It keeps CA and NY from dominating the presidency. And it will ensure OR has a vote that counts on a national scale.

Think nationwide

--cheers

I still do not see your point. California and New York and Texas clearly have pivotal roles in the national elections. These roles are proportionate to their populations, but I would see more of a local significance in the electoral college if each individual electoral district ( ahhh not another way to wage political warfare by engineering districts ) decided one vote and one vote only. You can win California and New York and Texas and say Florida by razor thin margins and be half way to the presidency the way it is set up now.

Electoral College Calculator

After getting the biggies the going is slow. The fewest states it would take to win the presidential election would be 11. (CA< FL< GA< IL< MI< NJ< NY< NC< OH< PA< TX) assuming MI=Michigan

True enough, Eeyore, but still the two extra votes per state is an advantage to the smaller states. It may be minor, but I like it that way.

That Electoral College calculator is interesting. I got Bush with 323 electoral votes, if the election was held today. I gave him PA and OH those could be close. I think he sucked up to PA with the steel tariffs.