@St.
Since the first president only 10 have won with less then 50% and of those, only 5 with less then 45%. The first time it happened was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams won with 30.9% of the popular vote. I would not call that the will the of the people. Eliminating the EC would only increase the chances of this happening. The more candidates, the more the votes get spread around. If we feel it is a problem, then work to change the parties we have, not re-invent the wheel.

@J.B
I think you are referring to elections with 3 or more candidates. I was referring to the fact that in a two-party race the winner may only have 32% of the popular vote. This is due to two EC rules - every state gets at least 3 votes and many states have winner-take-all rules.
I have no problem with a candidate winning with less than 50% if his opponents all received less that the winner. That happens all the time in other countries. There are ways to solve this, such as asking voters to also pick a #2 choice. Then you don't even need a run-off election.

St.: On the surface it sounds good.
So if 34% vote for the "R"
and 34% vote for the "D"
and 32% vote for the "I"
as their first choice....
But 68% picked "I" as the second choice...
who wins?

@St.
Isn't three parties what Medved is looking for?

So you are fine with a final of 33%, 33% and 34%; making 34% the winner. Please explain how that ends gridlock? The winner would barely have 1/3 of the country on his side.

@Craig - a good question. It would depend on the rules, of course. Of the cuff, I could see two solutions - First, you just consider the two that tied. So you would just add the 2nd place votes for the D and the R and ignore the I. So in effect the 2nd choice of the I's would determine the outcome. Alternately, you could give a weight to your ranking. So 1st choice might get 2 points, 2nd choice - 1 point. This might give the I the win.
@J.B. - The presidential election does not cause gridlock - that is Congress's problem. And remember that the EC could also produce a president with 34% of the vote. I often prefer gridlock. I wish Congress had been slower to act on many things, such as the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, etc. An urgent matter will require a coalition, like in most parliamentary countries.
I am not say any of this is perfect, mind you. I just think we can do better than the current system.

@St.
I agree on gridlock, the less done the better.

However, this appears to be a case of the grass always being greener on the other side. I can't think of an election system in existence that doesn't create its own set of problems. I would argue the solution doesn't exist in the restructuring of the election process but rather a better educated electorate.

I've been to Montana, and there are people living there. Maybe not enough to earn them three electoral votes as their true percentage of the US population, but there are people. Most, not all, are Republicans.

I guess it would be frustrating if a President were to win by one electoral vote and that was Montana's.

It's the winner take all factor of the electoral college -- you can win a state by a close margin or a landslide and still get the same number of electoral votes.

@Randy 1949 I am aware that people live in Montana. My point is that I don't believe the rule concerning 3 electoral votes was meant to favor anyone.

My problem with the electoral college is this: suppose you are a Republican living in Illinois. Well, you go and vote while knowing full well that Illinois'electoral votes will be going to the Democratic candidate. Does your vote really count then?

@Michael McCluskey -- I agree with you. The rule was created to give very low-population states a voice, and it's only coincidental that most of these states skew GOP at the moment.

As for my vote 'counting', I have often voted one way with the state going to the other candidate -- as in 1988 when I voted for George Bush Sr. and Wisconsin went for Dukakis. LOL

On a scale of 1-10, how important is the need to change the electoral college before fixing all the other issues we are facing?
I would give the EC a -3
The economy a -10
Debt -10
spending- 10
Voter ID- 9
I agree it is archaic, but I think we should focus on what is most important.

@AWD....You seem obsessed with mobs and anarchy. Many times in the past you have written of your fears of the rabble crossing the Milwaukee River coming into your village and murdering, pillaging and raping. So concerned about this you decided to arm yourself and conceal carry. The needs of 240 years ago are much different than the needs of today. In the first place we now have a literate society and people are better informed now than at any time in the past. My suggestion to you is adapt or go extinct.

@AWD-I second that!! Lyle says not true. Hmmmm lets just take a look at some of the far left progessive liberals actions during occupy, during the Walker recall, ect ect. Maybe Lyle you need to purchase the Brietbart film occupy unmasked and see some of the radical lefties!! When Barack Obama is DEFEATED on NOV 6th lets just see if what you say Lyle holds true. I have a gut wrenching feeling that we are going to see mass chaos and riots breaking out Greece style within our own borders!! There are many people living on the system today compared to 4 years ago. Many of those people honestly needing help but a very large majority sucking off the Government Tit!! Mass chaos and riots which will give Obama the authority to invoke Marshall Law thus canceling out the election and preventing Pres Romney from taking office!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

@Denise Konkol.....I don't follow your logic concerning that politicians wouldn't campaign beyond Milwaukee. Could you please elaborate?