First of all, if this descends into an argument about what happened last election, I will...be mad, I guess. There have been discussions in the JCC about this before the Senate came around, and I think we need new opinions on the matter. My question is thus: Do we need the electoral college, or should it be strictly how the majority rules? I think the electoral college isn't necessary. The original idea behind the electoral college was that generally people are stupid, so we should have these other people do the real voting (the electoral college). Also the founding fathers were afraid of mob rule. However, the electoral college really doesn't make that much of a difference. Think about it. The states with the highest population have many times more the electoral votes as other states. I believe California has 50-something, while here in Maine we have 4. So how does this significantly change the idea of majority rules? If more people vote for a candidate, usually they will win the electoral as well. Of course there are exceptions, but why should the electoral college have precedence? I've also heard that if we didn't have the electoral college, the candidates would ignore the small states and focus on those with the highest population. But isn't this what happens already? The states with the highest population have the highest electoral votes, so obviously a candidate will spend more money and time campaigning in California than Maine. So basically, my main points are thus: 1) The electoral college basically reflects how the majority votes, so we should just follow the majority. 2) The number of electoral votes is based on the population of the state. Therefore, states with higher populations have more electoral votes. Then why have the electoral college? 3) In a rare time that the electoral votes do not reflect the popular vote, there is no reason to hold the electoral votes higher than the majority, besides that it's in the Constitution. In other words, it's redundant legislation. Discuss.