At the time of this writing on Tuesday afternoon, polls for the 2020 general election still were open all over the nation. It was anybody’s guess who would be the next president of the United States.

But no matter who wins, one thing was true then and will be tomorrow — it’s time to get rid of the Electoral College, an anachronistic, undemocratic system that has long outlived whatever good purpose it might have served in the foggy past.

Michael A. Smith: 409-683-5206;

Recommended for you

(25) comments

Carlos Ponce

A resounding NO to both your proposals.[thumbdown][thumbdown]

NO to removing the Electoral College. [thumbdown]

Removing it would place all national political power in the hands of the big cities. Galveston County would become fly-over country with no political clout. We would have to bail out the economic mistakes made by big cities. All bills will be aimed at what's good for those big cities. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept behind the name "United STATES of America"?

NO to Texas signing on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. [thumbdown]

That could ignore the wishes of Texans by giving away our Electoral votes to a candidate the majority of Texans did not want.

Take the election of Obama. He won a national majority each time he ran but Texans chose otherwise. Do you really want to tell the MAJORITY of Texans their vote did not count? Is that going to entice Texans to the voting booth knowing their vote may be tossed out? Our parents taught us NOT to yield to peer pressure. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is nothing more than yielding to peer pressure. If everyone walks off a cliff do you really want to join them? Michael A. Smith tells us to join the crowd.[thumbdown]

Don Schlessinger

[thumbup] Carlos

Jay Arrington

If the Electoral College is eliminated, the 4 or 5 largest cities will control elections.

Gary Miller

Carlos> I noted that Trump was leading the popular vote until California's non citizen count was added to the Biden total.

Gary Miller

Carlos> Bravo to an educated Texan. Good for democracy? The founders sought to protect Americans from Democracy when they established the electoral college. They were aware that democracy was the greatest danger the union of federated states would confront. The electoral collage is our protection from democracy. Socialists want democracy because it is the easiest path to dictatorships.

Craig Mason

Your argument makes no sense Carlos. The electoral votes are still decided by the popular vote in the state. Removing it gives each vote more power. We elect every other office by a majority of the popular vote, why not the president. Texas is still a red state, because more people voted republican than democrat period.

Carlos Ponce

""The electoral votes are still decided by the popular vote in the state." Fine. Keep it that way.

Mark Stevens

Great article. I wish it were easier to sack the Electoral college.

That "sacred" institution is a relic. Mr. Smith makes a good point about the kinds of people who installed it--basically a privileged class, who felt they would be protected by "their" sort.

But also, the Electoral College was created in a time when the states were almost completely sovereign. The Civil War changed all that. It's time that we recognize, in several respects, what that enormous struggle from 1860-65 accomplished, and take advantage of it for a better future for everyone.

Tony Brown

Mark, you write well but you need to study your history. Like the bicameral legislature, the Electoral College was put in place so that all states would not have to bow to the whim of Virginia and/or New York - the population centers at the time. "Sacking " the Electoral College now would simply mean we'd be bowing to the whims of California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts. My father worked for a national company and I've lived in most of those places at some point - and there's a reason I'm here. Nationally, our problem is that our political process is controlled by a realtively small number of people . Eliminating the Electoral Collect will restrict that control to an even smaller group. Thanks, but no thanks.

Gary Miller

Mark> If the electoral college were eliminated you as a Texas resident would have no reason to vote. Non citizen voters in Las Angeles or New York would have more voice in selecting your government.

Bailey Jones

[thumbup] Yes! Proportional allocation of electoral votes based on the popular vote protects the vote of every American. The constitution mandates the electoral college but leaves the implementation to the states, so this change can be done in any state without a constitutional amendment. But I don't expect this will happen in Texas until Texas turns blue 50.1% to 49.9% and costs the Republicans a presidential election. Then it will happen really fast.

Carlos Ponce

No Blue Blight in Texas this year, Bailey.

Gary Miller

Bailey> I remember when Texas was all blue 80 or 90 % and we didn't want to eliminate the Electoral College.

Tony Brown

This simplistic line of thought is short-sighted. We might as well disband state governments as well. Currently, Democrats edge the popular vote because they win California, New York, Illinois and Massechussets by 5 million votes, and the Republicans win everywhere else by 3 million votes. Both sides need to win enough STATES to govern. If Biden wins it will be because he also won Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin and/or Pennsylvania. To have any hope of leading the nation, one must win the nation - not just a small portion where lots of people happen to live.

Gary Miller

Tony> You did your homework.

Wayne D Holt


David Smith

Terrible idea michael

Michael Culpepper

That each comment’s author is seeming looking at Michael’s suggestion through the lens of his or her own political party and how implementing this would affect said party’s success rate, speaks volumes of the entrenchment we have not over actual policy but of the fear of losing within this political warfare.

David Hardee

Another posting from a media authoritarian that reveals what is harboring and has destroyed the once revered and respected 4th Estate.

We are all privileged to express our personal opinions under the Constitution, But when an individual chooses a profession and especially when that individual attains a position of sway over their institution (GDN) it is incumbent on them under either oath or conscientious to moderate themselves to maintain the integrity of the institution. 4th Estates' integrity is no more. No more because the personal bent of those with the responsibility for truth, fact, and unbiased presentations have failed to sacrifice self for all that is more meaningful to the common/public good.

The person in the pulpit can live as they want in the shadows but in the pulpit, the message must be for the common good or, the preacher be gone. The Doctor who performs to standard in his pubic practice is acceptable tho he may resort to laxity in the shadow of personal life. Why, when the editorial function of the Media, should the presenter not be afforded the personal opinion or bias? Because the only purpose of the Media is, like the doctor or the preacher, to conduct in public that which is for the common good - truth, fact, and unbiased information.

The product of this country's founders, the Constitution, was intended to stimy any collection of power that could overwhelm our democracy. These men had lived and suffered under Monarchy and Theocracy and fear power concentration of any type. The 3 equal branches of our government with severe scrutiny from the 4th Estate were setup to stymie concentration of or by any power. The electoral college was constructed to offset those concentrations of populous that could form into a power base that could dominate the democratic votes of the most numerous parts of the collective population. It is the electoral college that is the bulwark against a dictator, a monarch, a communist, a theocrat, and secures our democracy.

Recent tinkering of the Constitution intended to enhance equality has created a

the morass of entitlements resulting in a new form of apartheid/segregation.

Editorialize with truth, facts, and indisputable evidence Editorialize on the functions, performance, and personal integrity of the other 3 branches of government.

The general population has editorialized on the Media and the Media is in disrepute.

james cussen

Well said David.

Don Schlessinger


Curtiss Brown

I too disagree with getting rid of the Electoral College.

The founders worked hard to protect the republic they created from slipping into tyranny. We can see how easily that can happen. We can see how easily people can be conned and it is really scary.

But we can consider some 'tinkering' around the edges of the Electoral College. If you read the Constitution you will see that it was originally thought that the electors would be men of conscience and goodwill who would be focused on what is best for the nation. We don't have that today. Instead, we have party regulars and proponents who think only of their political party. The states are essential to our constitution and to the process of selecting the President by design. They are empowered by design.

But one particular piece of the Electoral College has been adjusted by Congress. The votes allowed to the states. Texas has 38 electoral votes and Montana has 3 apparently to Mr. Smith's article a gross injustice. But it means that Montana is a participant as a state in our union, not as an observer of more populace states.

But Montana's electoral votes are not as the founders imagined because Congress limited the number of members of the House of Representative to 435. And that number directly affects the number of electoral college votes Montana has. According to the Constitution, we should have over 6,000 house members. Apportioning that number would more accurately (but not exactly) represent the true power of the states in the electoral college. We could adjust that number without adding actual members. There are other things to discuss that might put right the ship the founders crafted. But getting rid of the electoral college because it doesn't look like everything else is not a sound approach.

David Hardee

SMr. Brown, your astute observations are spot on. Yet, we are in jeopardy again from the TINKERING of the liberal revolt against anything traditional. Here is a percolating attempt to restructure the effect of the states on the Electorial College and there fore election of president.

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by › written-explanation

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states. Etc., etc and fix what is not broken!

George Laiacona

Unless I am mistaken don’t the people assigned to the position of the Electoral College supposed to vary the wishes of the majority of each state’s votes to DC. In the beginning Delegates either rode on horseback or carriage to bring the popular votes in. Well I’m today’s world of computers the popular vote of each state ca be delivered in a very short period of time. We no longer need the Electoral College

George Laiacona

Cary not vary

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.