http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Electoral College has withstood the test of time in U.S. politics

    In the Aug. 10 Gazette, there was the mention of the National Popular Vote, which would consequently render the Electoral College system just words on paper instead of an actuality. I sympathize with those who feel their votes don’t count and that this is an antiquated system, but I feel perhaps they haven’t done their research.
    The Electoral College system has been debated since its creation because everybody is so worried about popular vote. I, too, once thought the system was set up to scheme individuals out of their right to choose their president. After a political science class, I changed my standings.
    One of the reasons the Electoral College is so important to the electoral process is so votes can count, not count against us. Each state’s electoral votes equal its members in the House plus members in the Senate. Bigger states get more votes; because of this, minority and special-interest groups get a huge say in the presidential election because they are disproportionately represented in largely populated states (California, New York, etc.).
    Another important thing about the system is that it [essentially] mandates the two-party system — which has so many nay-sayers itself. It’s simple mathematics: If 25 percent of the votes go to one party, 36 percent to another and 39 percent to another, there is no majority winner. It is better to have a two-party system because third-party politicians can assimilate into the broader ideology of one of our two main groups, such as Ron Paul, who ran as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988. This creates less flexuous policy, greater variation within major political parties and advocates that the majority winner actually have a majority. Once you let a third party gain a stronghold, then we’ll have fanatics and extremists taking away far more votes than they currently do. And, it would mean no majority.
    The most important reason I’m a proponent for the system in place is it supports our policy of federalism. State and federal power are divided, and as set up in our country, it means the states have a lot of control over what happens in their own area. If the Electoral College were abolished, then national opinion would [dictate] all state votes instead of state ideologies dictating national opinion.
    The Electoral College is a tricky web, but there is a reason it has worked as long as it has. In our history, a president has been elected without winning the popular vote only four times. Is that reason enough to dismantle an institution that protects so many of our citizens’ votes and is built into our Constitution?
    AMELIA VREELAND
    Schenectady

There are arguments to be made both in favor and against the Electoral College system.  Most are valid (some are just plain idiotic).

My personal position is that there can be reform to the system, without removing it, or radically altering it.  The concept is simple, and is already in place in a couple of states.  The idea is simple, and "breaks" the winner take all aspect of the big states.

If a candidate wins a congressional district, you get that Electoral delegate.  If you win the State, you get 2 more delegates.  The electoral data is there already.  IIRC, Maine and one other State allot their delegates this way already.

It does change the whole Presidential race though.  No longer are any States "locks" for any candidate.  It "breaks" the stranglehold that big cities (such as NYC) have over a State.  It forces the candidates to campaign in places they currently pass over, from States to areas with in states.  

But, then where would all the cameras be????? Oh my the lost coverage.....where would 'Survivor the Politician' be????

Spoil sport.  

So I'm not in the employ or pay of the networks.  And if it makes them move on to other news, rather than just repeating the same 30 second sound bites every 15 minutes, I'll be happy.