Jejudo, South Korea
This was posted by Erik Wikman on the internet and I'm pretty sure it's accurate. I'm quoting only part of his article:
"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 C received 12% of the vote, then candidate A would receive seven electoral votes, B would get two electoral votes, and C would get one vote. In a worse case scenario, a president could be elected with a minimum of 42% of the popular vote. While this is not as accurate as a real direct vote, it is much more accurate than the current general ticket system. The reason this system does not require a constitutional amendment is because it can be imposed on an individual state basis. In order for this system to work properly, it must also be part of state legislation to require the electors to vote on what they have pledged to vote.
I also believe that a majority of electors should not be required, just a system of whoever has the most votes wins. If there is a tie, my expensive model would be to have a re-election with only the two candidates that tied. It is also possible to just redistribute the votes using only the two main candidates and then recount the votes. I do not think it is the House’s job to solve voting disputes.
I think the best strategy to getting a change in a 200 year old system is to start small, test out a new system on a smaller basis, and if people like it, it will spread and eventually take over the national policy. At that time it would become an amendment."
It may seem strange to offer possibilities for change when I don't think we should change (and nobody seems to want complete abolishment of the electoral college here anyway) but I just wanted to point out possibilities.
By the way, I'm not a Bush fan.
I'm not a Gore fan.
I don't think population factors should be the sole determinant of government elections or policy. Something that those on the left flirt with at their peril.