2016 Presidential Election Postmortem
November 12, 2016
Inside the Mind of a Trump Voter
November 26, 2016
Show all

What To Do About The Electoral College

Stephen Silberstein of National Popular Vote rejoins us to tell us how the Electoral College can be reformed to more fully reflect the will of the people.  And Ralph pays tribute to longtime colleague and head of The Center for Auto Safety, the late Clarence Ditlow.

“We’re not going to re-litigate or redo the results of this election.  This election was run under a set of rules.  It’s not useful to change the rules of the game after the game is over with so that you can get a different result… If you really want to do something, change the rules now in time for the next election.”  Stephen Silberstein of National Popular Vote on reforming, not abolishing the Electoral College.

“If you believe in majority rules, you believe in majority rules no matter where that majority comes from… There’s no democracy in the world that has this kind of absurd flip-flop situation with such dramatic consequences.”  Ralph on the Electoral College



Stephen Silberstein is a board member of National Popular Vote, whose purpose is to implement a nationwide popular election of the President of the United States.


  1. Mark Garcia says:

    Towards the end of the conversation there was a discussion about whether a popular vote would put the weight behind the large states and hurt the small states. The response got pretty convoluted and wonky. The short answer is: No, it would not throw it. Just look at how close the current race is. If it were just based on the largest states, it would be more lopsided. Plus, Ralph’s point is really the main reason: We live in a democracy and we should allow people to choose who they want to represent them. Right now we have the minority having decided who we’re going to be subjected to for 4 years.

  2. JOSEPH BIALEK says:

    The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
    eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

    This would eliminate the “winner take all” system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the “all or nothing” system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

    As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

    For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

  3. It’s an interesting idea to have states agree to give their electoral college vote to the winner of the national vote. However, democrats and republicans believe differently as to what a voter needs to bring to the voting location to vote. Conservatives argue that they do worse in states where no ID is required and that they do better in states where ID is required to vote.
    What about a small location like DC. DC had a bigger margin of victory for Hillary Clinton than Trump got from MIchigan, Wisconsin and Florida.

  4. My petition focuses on what Trump did DURING the campaign that went unregulated. FCC violations when he lied literally hundreds of times over the airwaves whenever he called HIllary Clinton a criminal. FTC violations when a Trump Ally, the National Enquirer, used their publication to plant their own opinion and predictions, as fact.
    What about an independent audit of Trump’s income tax returns. US vs IRBY means Trump would still be liable for his 20 year income tax deduction of close to 50 million dollars a year.
    The IRS needs to explain why Hillary Clinton was being investigated, but Trump was not.

  5. Sebastian McGarigle says:

    Where’s the medal of freedom for Clarence Ditlow?

  6. Steve M says:

    I just found out about Ralph’s podcast !! So easy to download the episodes , I’ve listened to about 20 of them in less than two weeks . Good stuff , I’ll have them all laped in less than two months I bet lol.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.