No, but reform so that votes are distributed proportionally instead of the current winner take all system

One man, one vote. Majority vote wins. Distributes votes most evenly, and provides most accurate voting.

The electoral college was established in a time when it was difficult for people to obtain a proper education, and was made to make sure those who truly held the votes actually understood the laws and politics behind the candidates. The majority of people now hold at least a basic knowledge of the candidates, so the extra step is no longer needed.

A popular vote would also distribute the votes proportionally, but more accurately than any electoral vote system. A popular vote is essentially the same as a reformed (proportional) Electoral College system that has a 1-to-1 ratio of voter-to-elector. Popular vote essentially means that each voter an elector.

Proportional allocation of electoral votes, while appearing fairer, would likely result in an unworkable system that mirrors national divisions, reduces accountability, and ultimately leads to smaller, more extreme parties holding the balance of power, rather than promoting broader national consensus

This concept of distributing proportionally is made so who every is in power decides who decides the next representative.

This system is an archaic remnant from a country that no longer exists. We can easily implement popular choice voting (and in my dream scenario, ranked choice voting) that would more accurately represent the American people. Land is not what should be voting, the American people should.

We need a true democracy. Popular vote is the only thing that matters, and it needs to be 100% accurate.

I agree with it. I would prefer to entirely remove the electoral college and elect based on the popular vote.

This is a fine idea in theory, but it is impossible from a realistic standpoint. There is no way to directly control the actions of the electoral voters in a way that would ensure corruption doesn’t occur. The choice between the “tyranny of the majority” and the “corruption of the few” must be made. Unfortunately, the former is far more in line with democratic principles than the latter, so one must accept the good with the bad and abolish the electoral college to minimize unfairness.

A popular vote would also distribute the votes proportionally, but more accurately than any electoral vote system. A popular vote is essentially the same as a reformed (proportional) Electoral College system that has a 1-to-1 ratio of voter-to-elector. Popular vote essentially means that each voter an elector.

My counter argument is that we should not have an electoral college. The electoral college gives electors more power than the average citizen. They can be paid or blackmailed to vote a certain way. Sometimes they don't represent their district properly.

A popular vote ensures the true needs and decisions of the American people; the electoral college does not, and it is outdated and subject to bribes or fraud

The idea of the electoral college giving votes from representatives instead of actual people is what is flawed with it and because it is a vote for a single person you cannot "distribute" the power equally among them.

We are currently in a bipartisan system so while it would definitely would be a step in the right direction more could be done.

This is a step in the right direction, as it allows for more granular representation, but still keeps the fundamental issues of the electoral system where arbitrary borders of the land have incredibly disproportional influence compared to the people of the United States. Just because people are concentrated or not in a certain area should never mean their vote "counts" on the national stage more or less. It's true urban tends blue, and rural tends red, but what does individual's leanings or location have to do with their individual importance and deserving of an equal voic…  Read moree? Both rural and urban voters have value, different, but important. Rural areas are often exposed to more of the blue collar and industrial side of the US, but lack as much exposure to people of diverse backgrounds, identities, and situations. Urban areas are often aware of more of the corporate side and the impact of policies on a broader number and variety of peoples, but lack the hands on, nitty gritty knowledge and experience that rural areas have more of, or the extremely close knit communities of smaller population centers. Both are important. One does not deserve more say than another. Each is a person who these elected individuals and policies will impact.

The electoral college system gives disproportionate weight to people who live in lower populated states.

In a democracy every vote is equal we are not a true democracy until the electoral college is abolished.

The electoral college is still ineffective, popular vote is what should be used in making decisions.

"Distributing proportionally" is what the electoral college was intended to do from the beginning. It has instead turned into an opportunity to gerrymander and take power away from individual voters.

It's all semantics, the whole point of a democracy is that your vote matters, and there shouldn't be electors that are allowed to be unfaithful to the voting of their state. It also makes gerrymandering or other processes like that easier.

Electoral College is one of the remnants of slavery and it needs to be abolished, one man, one vote, who ever gets the most votes wins.

The electoral college is a barrier to democracy that represents an outdated belief in an inability to count every vote.

That is just a repackaging of “abolishing the Electoral College”. It’s the same thing as using the Popular Vote to decide a winner.

As a champion for democracy, I firmly believe that the President of the United States must be elected by its citizens, not a room with elites sitting around a table. Every legitimate vote, in every county and state, must count.

The electoral college should be destroyed as it does nothing but allow for corruption of politicians misrepresenting the common man

The electoral college is inherently anti democratic. I believe in a country where we elect our leaders, our direct national consensus should be what decides our representatives. One state shouldn’t decide an election.

For national elections, whoever gets the most votes should win. Why would that be any different than any state elections?

Votes should be distributed equally and should reflect how the population actually wants the election to go, the Founding Fathers believed that the general public of the U.S. were too stupid to decide the next President and put in the electoral college so that they could ultimately control the votes of U.S. citizens. Gerrymandering and other tactics have been used to skew votes for elections, this needs to end so when the public votes for something, they can actually get what they voted for, not what the electoral college or political parties want.

Anything is better than what we have currently, I would support this if abolishing the electoral college is not possible.

i think that the presidential election should solely be based on the people’s choice and not the choice of individual representatives who don’t serve the people

This is a much better system, but is still less representative than a national popular vote. With current technology, is it very possible.

I disagree because it should be a ranked system as that can fix the issues of who people actually want to vote for compared to who they do vote for

The college is badly structured for our current times. there are things like proportionally distribution but they don't account for everything. I don't have a ton prepped for this, so I would need to sit down with others and rework a new system.

It is still less representative of the actual public opinion than a popularity vote. The core weakness of the “keep the Electoral College but allocate votes proportionally” position is that it preserves an intermediary structure that continues to distort voter equality. Even when electoral votes are split proportionally within states, the system still weights some votes more heavily than others because electoral votes are not assigned strictly by population. Every state, regardless of size, receives two electoral votes in the Senate. Voters in smaller states have disproportionately greater influence than voters in larger states and that does not disappear under proportional allocation.

Why put a new coat of paint on a run down car? Replace non-working systems with better ones, don't just try to patch-job the issue.

Reform is an impossible task for Congress and the Senate. Polarization has eroded any ability for lawmakers to compromise. Therefore, reform is futile.

The existence of the Electoral College is a Revolutionary War-era holdover from when the United States acted more as a coalition of separate states, rather than one federal entity. As time marches forward, it becomes more and more evident that this middleman that we once needed, simply does not apply as much as it once did.
Voters are more knowledgeable than before about their parties, electors themselves have lessened in ability, and overall, the Electoral College is functionally a stump compared to what it once was.

The electoral college automatically gives advantage to low population red states who do not respresent the majority of america.

I feel as if having a winner takes all would be better as it would be easier to vote, and everybody's vote would have equal weight in the election unlike the current system where the larger the population of the state the less your vote matters.

I think they should be abolished because the way we go about voting know is almost completely unfair. There are multiple different, more equal, ways to tax.

To argue in favor of the electoral college, candidates are not focusing on states with the largest population as heavily, but I still feel that the electoral college is not representative.

The electoral college should be just removed in general so that the voting can be based more around the people and their opinion

even so, it flattens out the individual's power in an election. also distributed proportionally, does that mean between each state? between districts, counties? because all of them, that would be fair, but it really depends

At its heart the EC was created to ensure that the people would not have a final say in Presidential elections. the EC retains an antiquated structure to dillute democratic influence in Presidential politics. Over time the country has moved to change how we elect Presidents, expanding the vote to all races and genders, lowering the voting age to 18, removing barriers to the vote and restricting the EC to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in state elections. It is time to remove the last vestiges of this elitist and antidemocrat system/

Reforming a system that is bad in current practice would be a waste of focus, resources, etc when the entire system could be replaced by a ranked choice popular voting system.

the electoral college is outdated and has the risk of the popular vote losing the election, which is unfair. smaller states have more influence over the larger states due to the ratio of senators and house members. the electoral college should be abolished.

If the votes are distributed proportionately then they would reflect the individual vote count and would still be unnecessary.

Proportional to what? It seems like this means choosing what groups you are going to divide the votes among, and thus what ways of chopping up the population. Are important. And that seems like an invitation to abuse. But it's possible I dont properly understand what is being proposed.

I don't understand this question as the system has to be winner takes all? If you did a ranked system and if the top Democrat candidate came in second and Republican in first, would that mean they get President and VP respectively?? That would never work and they would just stymie each other.

I agree, a ranked voting system would eliminate mass partisanship and make politics about the issues.

It would diminish the influence of smaller states, incentivize intense gerrymandering of electoral votes, and increase the likelihood of no candidate winning a majority, thereby throwing the election into a chaotic, political, and non-proportional House of Representatives.

I’m not sure how this would work or be better than just counting each individual vote. It seems like the same idea just in a more complicated round about way.

While proportional distribution may seem more fair, it could lead to a fragmented electoral map and make it harder to form a more stable government which could weaken the presidential elections.

If the votes are distributed proportionately then they would reflect the individual vote count and would still be unnecessary

What?! This question makes no sense to me. When the majority of the votes are proportionally distributed, the winner is the one that has the majority of votes and wins the prize. The fact that the majority rule isn't the way we elect is stupid. If you want a better system, lets do ranked choice voting. Thats the way everyone best choice gets picked.

A popular vote would also distribute the votes proportionally, but more accurately than any electoral vote system. A popular vote is essentially the same as a reformed (proportional) Electoral College system that has a 1-to-1 ratio of voter-to-elector. Popular vote essentially means that each voter an elector.

Winner takes all is bad, but electors voting on behalf of voters defeats the purpose of an election which is to allow voters to choose their representatives

I agree with proportional - but we might as well then get rid of the EC altogether. Proportional representation should effectively reflect the popular vote

I sort of agree, actually. The idea seems great, but there's also the issue of an incredibly small (in population) state having a similar amount of votes as a large(in population) state still not being fair.

Proportional distribution sounds fairer, but it would actually make the system more resistant to change while keeping its core flaw intact. Even if every state splits its electors proportionally, small-state vote inflation will still persist. By eliminating winner-take-all, you remove the situation that occasionally produces a popular vote / EC mismatch, but that issue is the main thing motivating reform. Worse, proportional allocation dramatically increases the chance of no candidate reaching 270, throwing elections to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote regardless of population and would arguably be less democratic than what we have now.

Proportional allocation would reduce the problem of "wasted votes" within states sure, but voters would still not be equal nationwide. Small states would continue to receive extra electoral weight because every state gets two electoral votes corresponding to its Senate seats regardless of population. A voter in a less populous state would still have more influence over the presidential election than a voter in a large state.

It still fails to account for how the vote of someone from California would be worth less than that of someone in a state such as Wyoming, and even as the population of California increases, due to the same number of electors in the college, the vote dilutes year by year.

No, but reform so that votes are distributed proportionally instead of the current winner take all system

but expanding it so that all people are given more choice of their candidates and they would represent them, George Washington even said the Electoral College should be capped at a population

I think the long standing Electoral College system works well for many years and is already fair.Changing to proportional split will only create more confusion and arguments. If something is not broken ,we don’t need to fix it.

The electoral college inherently distances the people from their government and further solidifies the oligarchy we in the United States live in.

Even if states split their electoral votes proportionally, the system still gives different weight to voters depending on where they live.

The Electoral college doesn't represent the people so why should they get to pick the person to represent the country

The electoral college is all about uneven distribution. You can't have EC without a winner takes all system, they're synonymous.

As it stands , today , we can NOT trust the principle would be made equitable . It is designed to be exclusionary . It needs to GO !!we are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed equal representation and the present system violates this right … an ethical society should and needs to abolish the EC .

The votes are already distributed proportionally enough that the majority president wins if there was no electoral college.

Meh, I guess that works, but then at that point just let the proportion of the population that votes for you be the % we care about

I think it is better than the status quo, but ranked is better because it allows for more options and chances of winning for non-establishment candidates.

The electoral college would still give some states more power than others, since the electoral college votes are distributed unequally compared to population.

Proportional allocation fixes winner-take-all distortion, but it doesn’t fix the core democratic problem that some citizens’ votes are worth more than others simply because of where they live.

You could still win with less than half the vote. Get just over half in enough states to get enough electoral votes and lose spectacularly in the others, and you can still win even though most voted against you

Why? The reason for that was because of lack of ease of communication. Now that we have technology theirs no need to group votes. Individual votes

It just comes down to what the whole population wants and the popular vote is the most logical way to make that happen

Electoral democracy makes candidates and politicians value their popularity rather then what’s best for the country

proportional allocation makes it much harder for any single candidate to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold needed to win outright.

One of the fundamental issues with proportional systems is that they could potentially result in fragmented outcomes where no candidate reaches the necessary majority (270 electoral votes) to win the presidency. This could lead to situations where the election goes to the House of Representatives, causing more uncertainty, delays, and possibly even political instability.

If the Election was formatted this way candidates wouldn't have to care about rural areas which is wrong.

While this is a solution that has merit to it, this solution still forces us into a two party system with people stuck between picking the "lesser of two evils"

That doesn't change the main problem of unfair maps so some groups are still cut out you can see this on how messy the majority of maps are

If they are truly voting based on the choice of the people then then it is redundant because individuals votes would do the same.