The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.

The debate has started again as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. For example, in Alabama, President Bush won 63% of the popular vote and therefore would be awarded 5.67 electoral points as compared to Senator Kerry with 37% of the popular vote and 3.33 electoral points. In the event of a tie, the national popular vote results would decide the outcome.

If one tabulated the final totals from Election 2004, they would find Bush with 274.92 electoral points versus Kerry with 257.71. The existing electoral college votes shows Bush 286 to Kerry 252. I believe this compromise would reflect a truer intent of the will of the people as exercised through their states. This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.

I don't see what the difference is between that system and proportional representation ('the popular vote'). That's not to say it's a bad idea, I'm just a little confused. Why bother with points if they're just going to reflect the popular vote exactly?

because the elections haven't always correctly portrayed popular vote.

I know that the elections haven't always been won by the person with the highest vote, if that's what you mean. That's the current system, which is clearly different. All I'm saying is that the alternative system he's described seems to produce exactly the same result in all ciircumstances as the alternative where you just count everyone's vote, except it's more complicated for no particluar reason.

I might be reading it wrong then.. cause the way I read this is that electoral votes (as a weighted value on a specific state) is clearly different than a by-vote (by-person) basis.

Of course, this would make buying off people's votes the main issue come election season...

Ok, so here's my problem with the whole thing.

As said, the electoral votes a state gets is equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which is at least one.) means that each state is guarenteed at least three electoral votes - and therefore actually have a bit of an ADVANTAGE. They have more of an electoral votes per person than - meaning that each individual vote counts for more in a less populated rural state than it would in, say, California.

Lets look at the numbers.

Cali has a population of 35,484,453 and has 55 electoral votes

By contrast, Wyoming has a population of 501,242 and has 3 electoral votes.

A quick glance tells us that Wyoming has approximately 6 electoral votes per million people, whereas California has a little more than 1.5 electoral votes per million people.

So is this balanced? Nope, because every vote is not equal.

But if you go even farther back, it gets worse, because this system used to reward slavery.

Lets remember that old little clause in the Consititution that counted slaves as 3/5 of a person in a state's population. Slavery was quite a bit more widespread in the South than it was in the North. This meant that they had many slaves who counted towards their population, yet could not vote - lending their voting population more strength than those of the North.

Just my two cents.

So do you think the elections should be in the hands of the few big states, and the tiny state left powerless?

I have to agree with this.

The reason for the electoral college is gone. The founders were afraid that every state would have its own candidate, and they would vote for their own, so a special group of people had to be empowered to choose the president.

Won't happen. This is the information age - the message of the candidates are spread as never before, especially with the advent of blogs and other such things. You or I are just as important as some guy from Wyoming. Why should his vote count for more?

We have no need for the electoral college beyond a stupid need for tradition...... it should be done away with as quickly as possible.... and voting should if not made mandatory at least the government should reward those who vote with tax incentives so as to get as many people into the polls as possible..... lets look at it this way..... if you win say 50% of the vote.... you in actuality only had maybe a third of the people in the US vote for you... clearly not a majority of any sort.... it is this lackluster appeal toward voting which is damaging our country more so than liars and crooks running for office...***points finger at bush***....

Everyone votes. The people who don't vote have decided that anything the politicians do isn't going to have a big enough effect on their lives that they need to care about it. That is a vote.

It's easy to vote in America, but some people still don't do it.

BTW, slightly off topic, the reverend Jesse Jackass needs to shut the piehole about people being disenfranchised. We just watched Iraqis literally risk death to vote, and the turnout was higher there than in our last election. I'm sick of hearing Americans whine about that shit.

I think voting is too easy in America. We should go back to testing for registration like they used to do in the old South. Give everyone a test, in English, on basic facts about The Constitution. The simple shit like "How many US Senators does each state have?", and "Name the three branches of the federal government."

If you can't pass that test, you have no business being in a voting booth.

If you can't read, you have no business being in a voting booth. You're too stupid to vote.

If you don't care enough about it to take the time to schedule the test, you have no business being in a voting booth.

If that was in effect, races would be decided by all the people who give a damn about the country, have strong opinions, and are well informed.

I gotta agree with you, Synikul...

Voting has to be voluntary, not compulsory. Too many people only believe or know what they're told, and if they can't be bothered, then frankly they shouldn't participate. Plus, if you provide some sort of payoff for voters, the prospect of buying votes is easier and quite a bit more likely.

Niether one of you understood a word of what I said.... you misinterpreted it because of what seems to me colored opinions of the American masses....... when today we have the most educated amount of people we have ever had... it is sloth, pure laziness, that is the culprit when it comes ot not voting and not apathy.....
you cannot buy votes with a tax break when the tax break is offered by the government and not a single representative..... this would assure that the entire population votes rather than a two third or less turnout..... no vote does not equal a vote.... and resorting to testing for the sake of voting would be a step back in the freedoms we are allowed in this country..... stupidity is not a good enough reason to ban folks from the voting booth.. if that were the case only about 10-25% of th epopulation here in the united sattes would be able to vote.... i can gaurantee that.... and do not say that i am going against what i said earlier because an educated mind does not make one smart..... someone could easily have a B.A. degree and still be dumb as a stump and managing a McDonalds.....

Think about it. You're going to then vote for the person who give you the best chance of that tax break being larger. Different name, same thing.

That aside, just because people are educated doesn't mean that they can't be apathetic, which seems to be what you're saying.

And that kind of DOES go against what you said...I mean, we're talking basic questions. Does it take a genius to know how many stars and stripes are on the flag? Or what the branches of the government are? If someone wanted to take such a test and pass it, its not as if that information is hard to find. If you don't even know what you're voting for people to do, then what right do you have to make your uneducated voice heard? If voting was compulsory, the results wouldn't reflect what people actually wanted, becuause you'd have many people voting simply because they have to. And if you offer tax breaks, then its the same sort of thing - people will vote for whoever just to save a buck.

Part of freedom is the the right to be lazy and slothful. I don't want anyone voting who doesn't care about the result. That isn't banning anyone, just giving them a few hoops to jump through to prove that they care enough.

people already vote without the faintest idea of the truth of matters.... they vote for who they like... they vote for who seems more charasmatic.. etc etc.... again you both miss my point.. but thats okies....

(((The tax break would be set in STONE.... no president or maybe president could change it.....))) as such that would negate your argument against it.....

I guarantee that if you were to propose a test before voting instead of maybe 60% voting it would go down to about 35-40%.... if even that.... i have faith that the greater majority of our country are a bunch of bumbling dimwits.... if well educated bumbling dimwits.....

That's why I want a test.

It would get shot down though as being counterintuitive toward freedom... even the stupid should have the right to vote..... hell the stupid are running our country right now

I should specify when I'm talking about what I would like to see in my version of a perfect world, and when I'm talking about reality.

I know the test idea would never happen, but I still think it would be a great idea.