Barry L. Pinsky, CFP, ChFC, CFM  of
      Barry_Pinsky@ml.com says...

Hi Eva.

On a relatively non-political note, I would ask you to think carefully about your wish to eliminate our hoary Electoral College. 

Is it perfect?  No. 

Does it always exactly reflect the will of the majority of the people?  Obviously not.

(In fact, many elections result in a minority president.)

But imagine the chaos if in 2004 we had to contest election results in every county of every state, as we did in Florida in 2000, because the national electorate was split more evenly than the margin of error takes into account. 

Think of all the various balloting options that would be immediately dragged into the courts, from the absentees to the punch cards to the machines to . . .  Flying chads would look like a day in the park. 

The Electoral College system allows the results to be broken down into manageable packets while maintaining a relatively fair system in which everyone agrees on the rules.  Modifications could still be introduced such as the representational division of electors as some states are considering.  The results are still manageable within discreet jurisdictions.

Always enjoy your comments.  Have a Shabbat Shalom.

Regards,
Barry

Frank W Webster, EA - Frank@acaringcall.com says...

Dear TaxMama,   I had thought that we should end the Electoral College, and go to a total popular vote since communication is not a problem as it was over two hundred years ago.   However, watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox Cable changed my mind. He pointed out that with a popular vote system, a candidate could concentrate on the 8 to 10 high density population areas and ignore the rest of the country for votes and thus their needs.

Colorado probably has the right idea by an amendment to split the electoral votes as to the popular vote, not winner take all. This would make all the states votes important, not just the large electoral vote ones.    

Frank W Webster, EA

 

Thanks, guys, for the excellent insights.

All right, my friends, let's look at what the Electoral College really does, shall we? Let's not just operate on heresay and assumptions.

What does the electoral college do?

Here is one of my big objections to the system:

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. 

Although some states' laws do require that the electors honor the will of the people, most states have no such laws. Can you just imagine some elector feeling contrary, and just voting for his/her favorite candidate? The electors don't cast their ballots until December 13th this year. Congress opens the ballots in January. So, we might not know that the electors decided, on their own, not to elect George Bush.

Some states, like Colorado have a better system. Winner doesn't take all. Their electors vote in proportion to the popular vote. That makes sense to me. After all, while Florida's votes all went to Bush, a large part of the population voted for Kerry.

So, OK, let's keep the college, but clean up the rules. Let's require that electors must vote the choice of the people. And let's apportion the electors' votes among the candidates selected by the voters.

We have computers. And we (except me) know how to use them.