Should the Electoral College be abolished? Why or Why not?

The Electoral College should be abolished because it does not represent the will of the people.

It is an antiquated system and the reasons for its existence are no longer applicable and are not rational.

Every American's vote should count equally, no matter where that person lives. In a presidential election, we are voting for the leader of our country and we should all have an equal say.

There is no logical reason why the vote of an American who lives in a densely populated area should count less than than of someone who lives in an area where there are few people.

Smaller states are already over-represented in the Senate where they each have two senators, even when their populations are only a small fraction of the populations of huge states. There is no logical reason to continue that over-representation into the selection of the President. One person, one vote.

Edit: Note that Republicans support the Electoral College system because going against the will of the American people is the only way lately that they can get a Republican president elected.

The Electoral College does what it was created to do. It was never intended that the President be chosen directly by the people. Each state, based on their population, was to have an equal say in electing the President. If we go strictly by overall popular vote we'll have about 6 states deciding for the other 44. The current system works, no need to change it.

Yes. 1 citizen, 1 vote. While that might be a nightmare for policies, it seems like a no brainer for electing people who allegedly represent us. The argument for the electoral college would keep populous states from electing the president ignoring the less populated states, because "majority rules" is bad. However, "majority rules" is exactly how the electoral vote is decided in 48 out of 50 states. 33% of Californians voted for Trump, yet Clinton got all the electoral votes. In Texas, Clinton got 43% of the vote and zero electoral votes. I also don't see how it is better for the minority to make the call on who is POTUS, over the majority.

Libs are saying yet but had no issue with the courts overturning the popular vote in the case of gay marriage. Nor in state like NH where Bernie set historic records for the numbers he beat Hillary by, Hillary still walking out the winner.

Much of the legislation that has been passed over the last 4 decades as far as social equality goes, went against the popular vote yet libs had no issue with it.

Funny how they can say they stand with the little guy so his voice can be heard yet don't believe the States with less influence, should have a fair say.

Hillary would still lose. As Trump said he designed his campaign to win battlegrounds and if that's not to be the case he would campaign only in Florida, CA, NY and populous states.

That shift in strategy would lead him to get even more popular vote. Also

1) many Republican voters in MD, new England, CA, and solid red States do not vote because of electoral.

2) swing States will have same result like now. Therefore only blue state vote would appear even more difficult for Democrats. For example Trump still got over 3 million votes in California which is impressive.

Be careful what they wish for. She still won popular by 0.7%. By no way is that decisive. Good chance she will lose other way also if rules were to be changed

It should not unless you believe California exclusively knows what's best for the entire rest of the country.

Picture the capital vs the other districts in The Hunger Games.

Yes. Basically only the swing states matter anymore. I live in a deep red state and have not since EITHER candidate campaign in my state since Ronald Reagan.

That would make redneck, red states like Montana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma not matter.

Which is a good thing.

No because NYC, LA, Philly, Chicago, Seattle, etc. aren't the only places that matter.

No. It brings balance to the states in regard to the ultra liberal cities.