Isn't the electoral college an out of date system?

It is very out of date. It was appropriate during its time, but no more.

However, to change to a direct popular vote would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would need to be ratified by three quarters of the states. But too many small states like the influence the electoral college gives them, and are not likely to ratify such an amendment any time soon.

So it looks like we're stuck with it for a while.

Vote for Rudy!

I do not know how to answer this question, as I am still unsure as to whether or not the electoral college is needed in today's society. However, I can tell you that people who present an argument justifying the electoral college say that people are generally influenced by campaign ads and the news media, both of which have a specific agenda in mind. One's view on the electoral college depends on one's view of the education level of the average American. People who believe that the average American will research the issues and pick their candidate after long consideration tend to believe that the electoral college should not exist, however people who believe that the average American judges candidates based upon looks, campaign ads, and what the media tells them believe that the electoral college has a valid purpose. The main argument used to justify the electoral college seems to be that slavery had much of the popular support when it was in effect. They say that if it were not for the electoral votes of certain areas, by pure numbers slavery would never have ended, and slaves would still exist today. Once again, this takes the view of the average American votes at the time into consideration.

No. without it, you're able to finally end up with a central authority of the ten best cities, by ability of the ten best cities, for the ten best cities. The Founding Fathers purposely meant it to not be a organic democracy. Critics of the Electoral college might additionally declare the Senate isn't democratic. 2 senators consistent with state, no rely how huge or small your state is. One California Senator represents approximately 18 million human beings. One Wyoming Senator's approximately 250,000. yet their votes count type the comparable.

The Electoral College is constitutional. It's the fairest way to elect a President but I would only suggest that the way the Electoral Votes were allocated could be changed to a proportional method (a candidate gets a % of the vote in a state and gets a similar share of the electoral votes). Thanks!

It was the best they had at the time. But we should go to popular vote...

It would give the smaller states a bit of advantage. The elections has been as close as a 100,000 votes so you would want every vote you can get.

Example ND has 2 votes, yet we never see a candidate It is taken for granted that it will go red. Hell we picked Dole!!! But the other 1/3 of us that are die hard Dem pickers would give that candidate 100,000 more votes then they had!!

If we could only find a week to keep the fraud out. ie (Die-bold and the republicans)

Here comes the thumbs down.

Many feel it would be more fair to split up the electoral votes based on the percentage of votes each candidate receives for that State. Would make it much more difficult for the *****@@####*** Political Pundits from 'Projecting a Winner'

.0000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the Polls close for that State.

I think New York and California should split there ec votes up buy precentage of vote, but other thatn that it should be winner take all in each state. After all we are a Federation

No, I can't agree. The Electoral college works, plain and simple.

There are some that don't like it.

We call them the losers.

It's been outdated for years. And it's unfair to voters.

no