My title is most descriptive, yes?
Over in this thread by Patty O’Furniture, we are discussing the possibility of California reforming the way we allocate our electoral votes. Rather than the winner-take-all system, California would allocate the votes on a district-by-district basis (a step which both Maine and Nebraska took years ago). Needless to say, such a reform would be an attempt to revolutionize the much disputed and (often cited as) antiquated Electoral College system of voting.
So what is the answer? I imagine many support a full abolishment of the EC- an institution that was originally enacted back before technology allowed instant communication and therefore stood as a buffer for fraud and mistakes.
Personally, I agree with the above stance for abolishment, as there seems to be little to no point to the EC anymore. More disturbing to me though, is that the chosen electors aren’t necessarily bound to vote along with the will of the people and while they generally do uphold the popular decision, there have been a few times a person decided to go “Broken Arrow” and do their own thing (somewhere in the South, I think Louisiana, an elector decided to vote for the football coach-- I searched for a cite, if anyone knows what I’m talking about and can dig up a cite I’d appreciate it).
With modern technology (and assuming Floridians can figure out how use a hole punch this time around), I fail to see the necessity for an Electoral College any more. Actually, I can’t even recall an argument pro-EC that seemend convincing to me, but I’d be interested to see if any of you support the EC in any form.
So do you believe the EC should be abolished completely, kept as it is now, or reformed? How, when, and why?**
I’m sure this has been done before, but it’s always interesting to see how the years (or even months) can change opinions on whether or not and how things can be changed.