The district system, the proportional plan, direct election, and a variety of hybrid plans have been proposed hundreds of times since the Constitutional Convention of 1787. None of these plans has been found to be acceptable. None preserves the basic elements of federalism and the constitutional compact; and none would preserve the two-party system, discourage factionalism, and still produce, at the lowest possible risk of a constitutional crisis, a clear result in a presidential election.
In light of their failure to amend the constitution, frustrated reformers have focused mostly on theoretical dangers and problems that might occur. The danger most cited is that, once every two centuries or so, a president might be elected with a minority of popular votes. In return, they are willing to sacrifice not only the basic principles of federalism, but the asset that is priceless in a free and peaceful society--a clear and prompt result in the election of the national leader. Far from being a danger, the Electoral College and the general ticket ballot are the two most important features of the unique American system for electing a chief of state (Michael, 1992).
Nevertheless, the reformers have a point with regard to faithless electors and the right of legislatures under the Constitution to appoint electors. These two problems should be addressed as part of any package of responsible reform. But to many reformers, these potential problems provide a convenient fig leaf for their true agenda: to abolish the Electoral College and undermine the principles of federalism. Indeed, many reformers have actively resisted efforts to specifically address these particular problems, for fear that any such minor reform would jeopardize their agenda for a radical change in the electoral process. This is indeed unfortunate, for the Electoral College system has already been refined to the limits permitted outside the Constitution (Erwin, & Mathews, 1994)...............
