The following some may already have seen, but in light of having little to post about, I thought I'd see what everyone's opinion is on the topic.
When the Electoral College was created, it was an entirely different time-period and the U.S. was an entirely different country. In order to understand the Founding Fathers’ reasoning behind the Electoral College one must understand the difficulties of electing a president in a nation that had only about 4,000,000 people spread across thousands of miles on the east coast. Poor communication was also an issue making it impractical to campaign nationally. It was also thought that the uneducated would not be able to make a good decision between candidates and that it should be left to the educated. There was a fear that people would not receive sufficient information about a candidate outside the state leading to people voting for someone from their state or region. As a result, it is possible that the president would be elected by the state with the largest population. Thus, the Electoral College was created and has evolved to what it is today, though the problems the Electoral College was created to solve have all but gone out of existence.
Despite the fact that purpose of the Electoral College no longer exists, it still remains as our method of electing a president and has created many problems of its own. Those that are called “Faithless” Electors, or those who have been elected to be electors, but do not vote for who won the majority of the popular vote, have indeed voted against the majority. This has happened 18 times. In each case, however it has not changed the outcome of the election. For example, in the 2004 election, John Kerry won the popular vote in Minnesota, but one elector voted for John Edwards for president. Another instance happened in the 1988 election when George Bush Sr. was running. In West Virginia, one of the five electors switched her vote. The fact that this happens at all is a problem.
In addition, the Electoral College violates political equality. Small states end up being disproportionately powerful, in that candidates of the losing party are thrown away. In addition, each voter’s vote does not have an equal weight. In Texas, a person’s vote would be something like 1/30,000,000, whereas in Wyoming a person’s vote would be more like 1/150,000. The proportionality of election points versus population is not equal either. Why does this violate political equality? The voter’s votes do not have equal weight, which goes against one oft the fundamental values of the Constitution: equality.
The Electoral College also does not guarantee majority rule; it can choose the popular vote loser. There have been five instances that the electoral vote has given the victory to the popular vote loser: 1824, 1876, 1888, 1960, and 2000. If a candidate for president was to campaign in the 11 largest states and he got just one vote more than half of the total votes in each of those states, he/she would get 271 electoral votes, but only 27% of the popular vote. Is that political equality? Is that a clear representation of the entire voter-eligible population?
There are three possible alternatives: Proportional Plan, District Plan, or Direct Election. In the Proportion Plan, instead of “winner-take-all,” it would be proportional to the popular vote. This would permit state-split electors. In the District Plan, the president would be decided by who won the popular vote in each Congressional election in each state. This also would permit state-split electors and a result in 3rd-party candidates winning House seats. The Proportional and District Plans would not require an amendment, but would be somewhat closer to political equality. The third suggestion would be a Direct Election. This plan would require an amendment to the Constitution, but it eliminates any political inequality. It will also prevent the election from ever having to go to the House. This would clear up most if not all of the issues and problems with the current Electoral College. So obviously, Direct Election is the only true politically equal alternative to the current system.
"Some may boast of prowess bold of the school they think so grand,
But there's a spirit can ne'er be told. It's the Spirit of Aggieland.
We are the Aggies - the Aggies are we. True to each other as Aggies can be.
We've got to FIGHT boys, we've got to fight!
We've got to fight for Maroon and White. 
They will come and join the best
For we are the Aggies - the Aggies are we
We're from Texas AMC!"
