the first question is, "Should we?" Then we can worry about "Can we?'

That's why the states need to pass their own laws that determine how their electoral votes will be allocated. It is easier for each state to do that than to pass a constitutional amendment. If the states that currently allocate all of their electoral votes to the winning candidate were to allocate votes to each candidate based on the percentage of votes they received, that would effectively eliminate the adverse effects of the electoral college and make the popular vote take precedence.

@ATDayHiker This seems much less invasive and logical.

That would have to be a big conspiracy.

@kgoodyear Look up some data on Diebold voting machines then.

@Logician "Five states in the U.S. — Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, New Jersey, and Delaware — run their elections using direct recording electronic machines (DREs), which provide no paper trail of the votes." I believe all votes should have a corresponding paper ballot. I will admit this system does not have that. This does not mean though the tampering secured the vote. Would you feel the same way if Trump had not won?

"If anyone reads the book Votescam, and then continues going to the voting booths, you can write them off as an idiot, a fool or a moron" Soooo, if you haven't read Votescam you shouldn't vote? Really??? I am "an idiot, a fool or a moron" because I voted?. If you don't vote you have no say in the results.

So you don't vote because you read a book; I vote because I have.

@kgoodyear Trump won because the people who were pulling the the election Tug-O-War on his side were a little bit better than the ones on Shitlery's side! I KNOW that the elections are bogus, so it's NOT a matter of how I may or may not feel about the results of a rigged up system!
Where did I say that people who didn't read the book Votescam shouldn't vote? Obviously, you are unable to think in a straight line longer than to the end of your own nose! If you can understand this, I said that anybody who HAD read the book and then still went to the polls to vote, is an idiot, a retard or a moron, because the book exposes how rigged up and corrupted the system is! Do you get that now?
We shouldn't even have voting with all of its inherent faults, ALL government jobs should be awarded on a luck of the draw basis well AFTER one is able to prove that they can do that job! Do you vote on who should be the surgeon putting some extra brains into your head, or do you find out who is most qualified to do the job first?
What book have you read that sells you on the idea of voting??
It's the idiots who do vote that have no say in anything after that, because they already made their choice! THEY are the ones who have no right to complain about politicians because they relied on politics to select their leaders. I don;t need a leader to tell me what to do, my natural goodness tells me what to do and what not to do.

@Logician ugh, what a load of crap....and I wasted time reading it.....Damn!

And the Senate.

If it is antiquated as you say, we should get rid of it! It has proven to circumvent the will of the people.

@SandBKnox So if it is old get rid of it? Does that include The Constitution? How about the Emancipation Proclamation?--that's old. How do you know the will of the people? You must be a very wise man.

Good point, but you said antiquated which is the word on which I should have focused. The real point is that we should not keep something just because it is old – a defense I often hear regarding the EC. Old does not = good, or bad, it just means old.

@SandBKnox Fair enough. Antiquated = old-fashioned or outdated. old =
belonging only or chiefly to the past; former or previous. However, changing the word old to antiquated still holds.

And a campaign cannot last for more than 6 months!

@Redheadedgammy I'm not real sure how you could enforce this. I believe we would be restricting their First Amendment rights by telling them they could not speak.

@kgoodyear I don't see how it restricts your speech, it simply means you have a rule stating that campaigns can last a total of 6 months. Speak all you want during the 6 month campaign. These 2 year campaigns are nothing more than a money grab, and that's the problem with our elections and campaigns, to much money being thrown about.

@Redheadedgammy 6 months maybe but 1 year is suitable as to give the candidates a chance to physically go to as many personal appearances as they can. But that’s just my opinion.

@Redheadedgammy
What should the punishment be for speaking to a crowd of people or a reporter 7 months before election?
Who of our representatives would enact such a (federal) law?
Who will site the speaker?
What about Congresspersons or people running for city council?
Are we going to start policing people who want to run for office and maybe change things that really do need changing?
How much do we learn about the personality of a candidate in those months you have now made illegal?

It won't pass the most basic spirit of the first amendment. Lots of questions I would really like answers to. I look forward to a pleasant discussion.

@kgoodyear lots of good questions. My friends in UK tell me their campaigns last 6 months, then they vote. Campaign ads don't last long either. I just get sick of the lies for almost 2 years. I don't know that they last that long in Canada either. Need to contact my cousin and ask her. Time for lights out for me. See you on the morrow.

The system of primary elections is totally screwed up! A handful of small states gets to decide who the rest of us get to vote for and in the process get this windfall of millions of dollars in campaign spending. I'd like to see a national primary and then a series of national runoffs until someone gets more than 50% of the vote. Does any other country on Earth have this sort of crappy system?

@Redheadedgammy I do believe that the UK could possibly fit inside of Texas so I’m sure that 6 months is all they need.

@jerry99 Our Bill of Rights has been around since 1776 (not including the amendments) and it (our Constitution) has worked very well. Perhaps you have a name of a country where their democracy has worked so well for so long and not had its own problems. I'm not sure you have an understanding of how the system works and I don't understand it completely myself but at least take half a day to research how it works. Realize though, changing the system won't happen without a fight.

I think it would be a bit premature to make such a drastic change based on 2 out of the last 3 elections.

@kgoodyear So just how many elections do the Repubs have to steal before you think it's a problem?

@jerry99 Since George Washington there have been only 5 times this has happened. The two more recent ones were Bush Jr and Trump. The others occurred earlier in our history. Would we be talking about this if the liberals had won those (2) elections??? I'll bet not. Should we change the system just so your candidate would win? Bad idea.

@kgoodyear The system is broken and has been for a long time. The Constitution only served white males for hundreds of years. We no longer tolerate slavery. Women and non-whites get to vote. Guns can fire more than one round every 5 minutes. It no longer takes weeks to get election results across the country by Pony Express. And it may not have affected you and your friends, but the Constitution has been twisted to serve its masters to perform despicable acts for as long as I can remember -- to suppress freedom of speech, to promote the Christian religion, to violate civil rights, to invade foreign countries without provocation, and on and on. So you can take your sacred documents and shove them!

@jerry99 HUH??? Your response is incoherent and seems to wander all over the place and in the end I question either your stream of thought or your editing capabilities.

@kgoodyear Learn to read. Learn to think critically. I'm done with you.

@jerry99 I'm heartbroken
by the way, the last 3 elections are Obama, Obama and Trump.

Hoping it catches