Keep The Electoral College
The Orange County Register

As the presidential election drama plays on, the Electoral College has taken a significant beating, supposedly because it short-circuits democracy. New York Sen.-elect Hillary Clinton announced, "We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago. I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."
Before a challenge to the Electoral College goes too far, it's worth looking at what its replacement by a direct vote would mean. The Electoral College is set up in three places in the Constitution: Article II and the 12th and 20th amendments, Roger Pilon, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, told us.
Abolishing the college would mean a major overhaul of the Constitution, which, in turn, would mean a protracted national fight in Congress, where two-thirds of both houses are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, and in the states, three-fourths of which are needed to ratify an amendment. Abolishing the college also "would entail a substantial lessening of the role of the states and enhancement of the role of the federal government," Mr. Pilon said.
John Eastman, a professor of constitutional law at Chapman University, added that one reason the college was formed was because "the founders were concerned about Caesarism," in which a strongman uses supposed popular support to seize dictatorial powers. "The president controls the army and, in modern times, the administrative state. The Electoral College is an administative intermediary that keeps some of the power in the states."
Mr. Pilon said the founders divided governmental powers to make sure that everyone, even in small states or rural areas, had a say in government. "The Electoral college reflects the role of the states in our system of dual sovereignty" between the state and federal governments, he said. "The founders chose to divide government that way so that no one power would be dominant. If the college were abolished, presidential candidates would campaign almost exclusively in major population centers to capture efficiently the broadest number of votes.
Third parties probably would grow in power. Third parties are desirable because they give voters more choices, but the Electoral College currently moderates their role. Without the College, the U.S. electoral process probably would begin to look like that of European countries, where many small parties compete and gain recognition because they get a chunk of the vote every time.
The vote likely would become so splintered, with no one taking more than 50 percent, that run-offs between the top two candidates would become the order of the day. Finally, if the recount and "voter irregularities" of this election seem bad, at least they're apparently limited.
In a close national election based on popular vote, every vote out of 100 million would have to be questioned - and counted and recounted. Do we really want our nation's future depending on the integrity of the election process in, say, Chicago, notorious for its voting cemeteries? Currently, Chicago at most influences only Illinois' 22 electoral votes.
The Electoral College, whatever its defects, serves the purpose the founders intended of uniting disparate regions and limiting the power of the federal government. Whatever happens this month, it's worth keeping.

The Electoral College
From Stephen Taylor Warnick
I just want to make a short mention of something. The Constitution is a "Closed" document. The only way to open it has already been discussed in a couple of articles on your site and it is a lengthy Congressional process as we know, but no-one is mentioning the most apparent part that needs to be brought to the attention of the public. This electoral college thing is just a smoke screen hiding the real reasons that the powers that be want to get the Constitution opened up. Its just a stepping stone that will lead to further changes on even more Amendments in the Constitution and we both know the primary targets.
The 2nd, the 4th and probably the 10th as well. I want to point out that once the Constitution is considered an open document changes can be made anywhere within it and MOST LIKELY will be. Changes won't be limited to just the main reason or excuse that it was opened in the first place. Just the removal of a period here or a coma there maybe the deleted 'and' or 'but' in some key places could change the entire definition of what was originally said and meant and this word needs to get to public somehow and soon. Opening the Constitution is a very dangerous and potentially disastrous proposition.
This Site Served by TheHostPros