Totally agreed. The problem is that there is no such thing as a "National Popular Vote". Elections are run by the several states. One goofy state even has vote-by-mail.

I don't mind the electoral college. It usually doesn't change the outcome, and it gives some weight to geography. The U.S is not a democracy but rather a republic, and the strength of a republic is the moderation it gives against sudden momentary shifts in public opinion. So, I certainly don't want the Oregon legislature anywhere near the ability to swing Oregon's electoral votes in their entirety. The Oregon legislature and other agencies are corrupted by the domination of public employee unions who are protected from countervailing forces. The public employee unions own Oregon government lock stock and barrel. Look at Secretary Brown who just threw out nearly 50% of all signatures on the Casino initiative, and 13000 off the top without review on the gerry mandering initiative. I am with Bojack this is no way to change the electoral process.

Popular vote advocates forget the nightmare of a recount. In a close election, we could have to recount every precinct in the county!

And a county or two with thousands more votes than voters could tip the election.

Absolutely a bad idea.

Thanks
JK

Another downside of the national popular vote is that vote fraud in a small area is guaranteed to have a nationwide effect, because the fraudulent votes will be counted in the nationwide total. Under the present system, fraudulent votes in one state affect only that state's electoral votes.

The House could reject the votes, just as it could have the disputed Florida votes, just as it has in the distant past, consistent with the US Constitution.

I can blame the House, upon whom the duty properly falls.

I think we should stick with the electoral college.

Very few of the politicians of either party strike me as even half as well studied as the founders were.

I think that the system has worked so far.

The founders were a flawed bunch, but I believe that today's scumba...political types are products of our more recent educational system and alsoonly care about their party's grasp for power, and therefore should just back away from tampering with what the founders gave us.

My biggest problem with the Electoral College is that, like the Senate, it disproportionately benefits the least populated states. Wyoming has less than one-sixtieth the population of California, but it has about one-seventeenth as many electoral votes. That's quite a discrepancy, especially when you're talking about something so consequential as a presidential election. (For a middle-sized state like Oregon, it's more or less a wash.) The college could be made much more equitable by stripping two electoral votes from each state, thus giving each state the same number of electoral votes as they have representatives (with DC having one).

The electoral college is an idea whose time has gone.... now fixing it will not be easy.

The National Popular Vote Compact is an agreement (among the states that join it) to cast their electoral votes for the candidate who earns the most individual votes nation-wide. This compact can only take effect when enough states to surpass 270 have joined. Each state still keeps its own records. Each state still runs its own elections. State sovereignty is maintained. Recounts need focus only upon the region/state where error or fraud is suspected.
The Electoral College was established as a compromise, in a technologically primitive time. We don't need it, as there are more efficient ways to count votes now. My state (NJ) could throw our votes to someone that I didn't vote for, or that NJ didn't collectively vote for...but that happened for me in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004...The Office of the President should go to the individual who has the most voters' support. The National Popular Vote Compact would ensure that.

When I was younger I detested the electoral colleges. As I've aged and watched politics I now know our founding fathers are geniouses.

Personally I would love to see our state adopt an electoral college system on a county basis. As it is now only a couple counties run this state and believe me Multnomah county needs are nowhere near Harney counties. Our state is to big and diverse to be run by the couple counties that do run it.

There are several reasonable alternatives to the current College--such as dividing a state's electoral votes in proportion to those cast for each candidate. Naturally state-level parties which are dominant in a state (e.g., California, Oregon) oppose that. Or, one could assign an electoral college vote for each congressional district. This would face similar opposition. On balance, I agree with Jack about the current proposal, but strongly disagree with his put-down of state legislatures. Prohibition ended because enough state legislatures did an end-run around Congress--as clearly provided in the Constitution--to force a vote which repealed the "noble experiment."