Has the Electoral College Become Obsolete?

In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Presidential election. Since then many have said that the Electoral College system was the problem. Most States (48) have a winner-take-all system of awarding the Electoral votes for their States in national elections. Nebraska and Maine do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there can be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. The NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) website explains their system of proportional voting like this:

“For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.”

In California, Republicans are currently trying to qualify an initiative for the ballot to convert California to a proportional voting State in order to split the electoral votes in the richest prize in the national election. With over 10% of the nation’s Electoral votes, California can either make or break an election. While some would argue that this would make the election fairer, they fail to point out that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are pushing for ballot measures in all 48 States that follow the winner-take-all method to change their policy. California is being targeted because it has historically voted Democrat and by changing the system in California alone the Republicans could win a virtually permanent advantage in the Electoral College. The likely resulting shift of 22 Electoral votes would be the equivalent of giving the Republicans an additional Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming. Splitting the Electoral votes in only California without splitting the other States would give them the equivalent to a seven State bump in Electoral votes.

So what is the solution? Do we continue to allow national elections to take place where the winner loses or should we ask all 50 States to decide if they want to abandon winner-take-all or something in between? It seems the logical answer is that, in the interest of fairness, it should be all or nothing with changing the Electoral College system. If you pick and choose which States change then you are giving an unfair advantage to one party over another based on the voting tendencies of the rest of the States who still use the winner-take-all system of allocating Electoral votes. On the flip side, if we went to a proportional system in all 50 States where votes were awarded based on Congressional Districts, Independent candidates would almost surely begin to have better showings in the national elections. This would lessen the stranglehold that the two major parties have on national politics and more than likely serve the American people more effectively.

For now there is not likely to be wholesale change in the Electoral College so voters have to be wary of any movements to manipulate the Electoral College by trying to change the system in only certain States. If either major political party is serious about changing the Electoral College system to better serve the American people they have the resources to push for ballot measures in all 48 States not currently using proportional allocation. To blame it on the lack of ability to have a single ballot petition for a national referendum on the matter is a deceptive argument meant to mislead the voters. Pushing for change in only Electoral vote rich States that have historically gone to their opponents is a transparent attempt to manipulate the outcome of national elections.