Final answer:
The debate over abolishing the Electoral College revolves around whether to adopt a popular vote system or make it proportional, addressing issues like vote suppression and lack of accurate representation of the popular will, while considering the protection it offers to small states.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the Electoral College should be abolished is a topic that generates considerable debate among scholars, politicians, and the public. One perspective suggests that the Electoral College should be replaced with a popular vote system, where the presidency would go to the candidate who receives the most individual votes across the nation. Such a system would reflect the aggregated vote totals from all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Another proposed reform is to make the Electoral College proportional, assigning electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote within each state, as opposed to the current 'winner-take-all' system, except in Maine and Nebraska. This could better reflect the will of the electorate in each state.
Opponents of the Electoral College argue that it distorts the democratic process, suppresses voter turnout, and does not accurately represent the popular will. Moreover, it disproportionally represents smaller states and often overlooks 'safe' states, leading to nearly 75 percent of the country being ignored during general elections. Proponents, on the other hand, maintain that it protects the interests of less densely populated regions and small states, ensuring a balance in the federal system.
The 'first past the post' system, another term for the current U.S. voting system, also has its issues. It can discourage multi-party systems leading to a two-party dominance, and in some cases, it can allow a candidate to win without receiving the majority of the popular votes.