I understand the pros and cons of the electoral college, but this article makes a good case for trashing it:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/index.html

I currently live in Georgia. It is almost definitely going to vote for Bush. I recently moved from California. It is almost definitely going to vote for Kerry.

So, what is my MOTIVATION to even bother to cast a vote for PRESIDENT in the November election? Practically nothing. And it is a shame.

The voter turnout in the US is shamefully low, and this situation might be a big part of it. Why expend energy for no return? Why should only people in battleground states feel that their vote counts for anything?

If we had presidential elections based on the POPULAR VOTE, candidates would be forced to contest for votes all over the country, and every single vote would make a difference. Almost certainly, voter turnout would increase, and arguably, we would be an improved democracy.

I realize this is not going to be changed anytime soon, if ever. However, that doesn't change my frustration that my vote in Georgia doesn't mean a fig, while Gop 4 Life's vote in Pennsylvania is important and is being hotly contested.

Add to that the fact that most presidential elections are simply a choice between the lesser of two evils so a lot of Americans just don't see any point in bothering to go out and vote.

The Electorial College system was organized as a means of preventing the more populous states from running roughshood over the less populous ones. It was put there for a purpose, and a good one at that.

If you take that away, you violate the rights of these states, and increase the overall power of the Federalist government, not the soverign states. therefore, I am opposed and would never vote for a further increase of power to the central State. Period!