Hmm, let me think about this very complex issue....YES! YES! This obsolete holdover from the early days of the Republic serves no purpose today except that it is possible, as in 2000, for a person to win the Presidency with fewer popular votes than his opponents. Democracy is based on majority rule, and that election showed the major flaw of the Electoral College.
Some will argue it gives smaller states more representation, but I don't buy it. South Dakota and Kansas get no more attention from Presidential candidates with the Electoral College than they would without it, and the EC only applies during Presidential elections, not for congressional apportionment or anything else.
The electoral college is an antiquated and bizarre form of democracy. Today we have the technology to allow each citizen, regardless of the state he or she lives in, to cast an equal vote. There is no reason to give some states more power than others based on population or location, because each person should still have one vote.
If the electoral college were abolished, the voices of citizens of the smaller less popular states would be abolished. The Electoral College embodies the concept of Sovereign States united under a general government, and allows the states, not the people themselves to choose the President. Representation in Congress is proportionate among the states, with each state represented. If we abolish the Electoral College, then we would next abolish our Congress in exchange for a General Assembly. Let's leave well enough alone. The electoral system isn't perfect; but it's better than the alternatives.
I would argue that it should be abolished and at the same time we switch to a parlimentary system so that small interests can still be represented. I think the two-party system is a complete failure at this point and needs to be forcefully changed if anything meaningful is to happen politically.
I do not believe that the Electoral College should be abolished. It is part of our traditional political system -- part of how things have always been done. In addition, it does not really create any major problems. Therefore, there is no real reason to do away with it completely.
The Electoral College does give a disproportionate amount of power to small states because they have more Senators than they "should" based on population. However, it is important that people from all states (even small ones) feel like they are an important part of the process of electing a president. If they were just a few votes in the whole total of a popular vote, they would not feel that way nearly as much.
If we want to reform, we could start with having votes given out by congressional district -- whoever wins a district gets that district's vote -- instead of on the basis of the whole state. That would allow more people to feel represented, especially in states like mine where there are major geographical splits (one region Democrat, one Republican). The two votes each state gets for its senators could be awarded to whoever wins the state as a whole.
Absolutely not. The electoral college does provide a disproportionate weight to voters in smaller states but this just ensures that smaller states get some due attention in the presidential campaign and election. Another benefit concerns voter fraud and error. One of the problems with a direct national election is the ability of large population centers to dominate the election. The current system checks anomalies at the state line (or congressional district line if a state so chooses). So for example, voter fraud in Chicago will only affect Illinois' electoral votes. The same for voter error. It is impossible to eliminate voter error. The best remedy is to simply control its effects and the electoral college does that.