I wrote the following for a deleted post, but wanted to put it out there for consideration. Please discuss in a non-partisan manner and take off the red or blue glasses when responding. Harry Reid certainly didn't consider the reality of his "nuclear option" when removing the super-majority requirement for various presidential appointments and Democrats will rue that decision for the next 4 years. The same could be the case for those arguing against the electoral college.
For those wanting an election by popular vote for President, imagine the controversy and fighting involved in an election where the popular vote is close and we are litigating and arguing about votes in all 50 states. It is one thing to recount the elections in one state. Imagine the time and expense to recount the nation and the court battles over each individual vote and the potential of not concluding the election process in a timely manner. There are differing methods and election laws in each state. Are you ready for Congress to regulate the elections in every community? Decisions on early voting, mail in balloting, poll times,... will need to be standardized and promulgated from DC. Arizona and California are 2 states that won't complete their ballot count for weeks.
The greatest reason not to scrap the electoral college is that an election by popular vote would put the focus of the elections strictly in urban areas, which represent the overwhelming majority of the voters. Rural areas would be ignored by candidates. The campaigning would be contained to a handful of communities.
I can understand the concerns about electing a President by the electoral college. It is flawed, but far better than the alternatives. I would consider moving away from winner take all and electors being selected by congressional district with 2 state-wide winner take all electors (as is done in Nebraska and Maine), but this places even greater scrutiny on gerrymandering of congressional districts. We are still litigating maps drawn after the 2010 census. Are the elections of 2012 and 2016 possibly invalid due to future court mandated changes in district boundaries? We know the system we have and the rules are easy to understand. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternatives.
For those wanting an election by popular vote for President, imagine the controversy and fighting involved in an election where the popular vote is close and we are litigating and arguing about votes in all 50 states. It is one thing to recount the elections in one state. Imagine the time and expense to recount the nation and the court battles over each individual vote and the potential of not concluding the election process in a timely manner. There are differing methods and election laws in each state. Are you ready for Congress to regulate the elections in every community? Decisions on early voting, mail in balloting, poll times,... will need to be standardized and promulgated from DC. Arizona and California are 2 states that won't complete their ballot count for weeks.
The greatest reason not to scrap the electoral college is that an election by popular vote would put the focus of the elections strictly in urban areas, which represent the overwhelming majority of the voters. Rural areas would be ignored by candidates. The campaigning would be contained to a handful of communities.
I can understand the concerns about electing a President by the electoral college. It is flawed, but far better than the alternatives. I would consider moving away from winner take all and electors being selected by congressional district with 2 state-wide winner take all electors (as is done in Nebraska and Maine), but this places even greater scrutiny on gerrymandering of congressional districts. We are still litigating maps drawn after the 2010 census. Are the elections of 2012 and 2016 possibly invalid due to future court mandated changes in district boundaries? We know the system we have and the rules are easy to understand. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternatives.
