Questioning the Electoral College

As the presidential election of 2012 is rolling around, I think it is time for a little lesson in voting. Did you know that even though one votes for a candidate, all the votes are tallied, and someone has received the most votes, they may not actually win the election? That's right. That vote can be overturned in a sense by the Electoral College.

The Electoral College has been around since our country's first election. The framers of the Constitution for some reason decided that election of a president by popular vote was not good enough and so created an electoral college to do it for us supposedly based on the popular vote. Seems like an un-necessary extra step to me. Members are based on various factors: number of senators in each state (2), and the number equal to how many representatives there are for each state which is based on population and will vary as the population does (Census figures), and three for Washington, D.C. These electors are usually voted in by popular vote. Supposedly, the electors vote according to who their individual states have popularly voted for the president, only actually they do not legally have to do that at all. It has happened four times in our history, as recently as 2000 when Al Gore, who won the popular vote, lost the electoral vote and therefore was not put into office. Regardless of how anyone feels about who won or lost the election that should not be legal. If someone won the popular vote that is who should win the election.

In this day and age when business people and politicians are often bought and paid for in various ways, otherwise there wouldn't be any lobbyists out there; it would be way too easy for someone to buy an electoral vote. I'm not saying that has happened, but it potentially could. Some states have sanctions for not voting with the popular vote- a fine and not being able to be an electorate again. Big deal! Anyone could pay the fine for them and if they truly are just trying to rig the election, then they don't care if they are not voting in the next one. At least Michigan negates the vote of the person not voting according to their state's wishes; others just give a slap on the wrist, so consequences vary wildly all the way to only being replaced.

When I checked the National Achieves (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html) it listed how many representatives there were for each state and how many states had no laws or pledges regarding the electors voting with their state's popular vote - that means no penalties. There were 24 of them. That's 24 states' electorates potentially voting against the popular vote – almost half!

I don't see how we would have the right to point fingers at other countries' elections if we can't guarantee we would have an absolutely fair election. This is from a Constitution-believing, proud patriot: The Electoral College must go if we can't find a way to guarantee they will vote with the people they represent. I understand the College is supposed to make lesser populated states just as heard as the larger ones, but unless we want another play out of the 2000 presidential election, changes need to occur. Maybe jail time should be part of the deal for not voting as they are supposed to and it should be counted as election fraud. I am not a politician and I do not have all the answers, but together, as a country, the way the founding fathers did, we should figure out a solution.