Final answer:
The Electoral College faces criticism for not accurately reflecting the popular vote, disproportionately affecting smaller states, and leading to neglect of 'safe' states. Alternatives such as a direct popular vote or a proportional Electoral College system are proposed reforms. These changes aim to enhance democratic representation but would require constitutional amendments.
Step-by-step explanation:
The discussion on whether to replace the Electoral College is centered around its perceived shortcomings in reflecting the popular will of the people. One major critique is that the system can lead to a dissonance where a candidate loses the popular vote but wins the presidency, which has happened in elections such as those in 2000 and 2016. Moreover, the Electoral College amplifies the votes of smaller states and leads to a landscape where 'safe' states are often ignored campaign-wise, leading potentially to decreased voter turnout and engagement in those areas.
Two proposed reforms include abolishing the Electoral College in place of a direct popular vote, or altering it to reflect proportionally the votes each candidate receives state-by-state. The proportional approach would more accurately mirror the voter distribution, potentially increasing the sense of vote equity and importance amongst the electorate. However, any changes to this system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a significant hurdle given the complex nature of electoral reforms. My commentary on this is that while the Electoral College was a compromise for its time, reflecting a balance of power across states, the evolution of democracy and the desire for direct representation may make the case for considering its reform or replacement more compelling.