terms of electoral votes. The United States democracy has matured to the point where the people of the US are ready to elect their officials. Under the general ticket system it is possible for a good strategist to ignore 78% of the nation in trying to get his president elected ("Majority" 521). Also note that only 49% of the nation actually votes, meaning the outcome of an election theoretically could represent only 12% of the nation (Reichley 107). Since the people of a state vote for a president, and not an elector, it should be required for the elector to vote for whom they pledged to represent. If the Electoral College was to deadlock, and no president had a majority, then the election would pass to the House of Representatives. This would outlaw all logic of the Electoral College, giving one vote per state. Most people believe that the only way to change the voting system is to pass an amendment to the constitution. There are 39 generally smaller states in the US. These states hold a majority in the senate, and also hold a majority in the ratifying of the constitution. The Electoral College gives the proportional advantage to the smaller states. Thus it would be near impossible to pass an amendment to take away power from the smaller states and give that power to a direct popular election. But this is not the only way to change the Electoral College system. The constitution clearly states that the choice of electors is to be made by the states. And court cases have named it constitutional for the states to require electors to vote one way or another according to their pledge (Glennon 137). Thus an easier, but just as effective, method of change is called "Allocating the Electoral Vote." In this method the states hold a poplar election and the electoral votes are allocated by percentage. Thus if a state had ten electoral votes, and candidate A received 70% of the popular vote, and candidate B received 18% of the vote, and candidate...
