States can do that now, and Maine and Nebraska do. That's completely up to them and always has been.

But an amendment asking the states to surrender their power in a federal republic in exchange for straight brute democracy–essentially abandoning the entire core Constitutional principal of state's rights– is not going to fly, for the simple and obvious reason that enough of the states themselves recognize the purpose (and benefit) of the system that an amendment can not muster the numbers required to pass. Only the more populous states that would be winners in terms of influence will be in favor, and they by definition a minority.

Let's put it out there and vote on it………….again, one-person, one-vote. There is no other way that's truly fair.

Citizens deserve this.

While I can understand state rights and all, doing this for a Federal election is kind of bullshit. If there is any hope of keeping the EC alive, the first thing that needs to be done is have one set of rules instead of fifty. Also, the “one for all” per state system sucks. If each district had one vote instead of state by state, it would more closely reflect the popular vote, and there's far less chance that an entire election would fall on the will of one large state (eg: Gore would've won 2000 if EVs were split up).

Game theory wise, the electoral college does have it's advantages (which are increased by the fact that all but two states bundle their votes, which is, in the end, the real problem. Otherwise, the popular vote and electoral votes would be very similar), in that your vote represents a higher percentage of the state's vote than it ever would of the federal one. To be fair, my understanding of the overall theory is that all voting systems are flawed in some way, and the only best way to go is to make sure the rules don't change in the middle of an election.

Finally, we should remember that we're a federal republic, and states do matter. I see no reason to strip them of the ability to decide how they want the votes of their election to change. Otherwise, if this was a justice issue, we'd see more states putting up to change the winner take all system (by a side other than the expected loser).

The compromise that came up with that system was a wise one, and the purposes for which it was designed still apply as much as ever.

So I'm all for the direct election of the president by popular vote.

Anyway, I'm surprised it hasn't come up that in our current climate, the vast majority of people in the country are effectively disfranchised. Living in Ohio, I constantly have people say “how does it feel that your vote actually counts?”

People decry the lack of political involvement, but at the same time, in most states it doesn't matter whether you vote because the winner of the state is preordained. Going to popular vote (or having the states decide their electoral college votes would be proportionally split) would convince more people to go to the polls and become more active in the process.

I think that is about as fair as it gets.

No. The time has not come.

This is definitely not the case these days. As such, I find it hard to argue for giving rural areas a greater representation, especially when most regional specific laws are put together by Congress and rarely addressed by the President.

As to the arguments about regionality in the popular vote, many of the talking points carry a lot of popular appeal, but leave serious questions. You say that a few precincts in LA or NYC can wipe out a million votes elsewhere. True. But by the same token, numbers are numbers. The people in all of the “flyover states”, with a solid front, can still outnumber the coasts handily. And in the end, is it ever really fair to say that the winner should be the person who less people voted for no matter where they reside? I suppose that's my question for you. It's not geography or post office code where any one vote is cast, it's a simple question of whether or not you believe that each vote counts for the same amount? In the current (and traditional) system, they seem not to.

Would I be right in guessing you're from a big population state, possibly in the East?

Because the whole point of the Electoral College was to dilute the power and influence of Big population States overwhelming small states.

Strictly speaking, that means South Dakota and Iowa and Rhode Island and Maine and Arkansas gte more influence than they deserve only by number of voters.

But it also means that it isn't up to ONLY New York, California, and Texas to decide who gets elected President. (A million votes or less? That can be made up in one or two precincts in LA or NYC.)

It always seems that only those with a particular agenda — Having a Democrat elected President — or those residing in a Big Population states seem to think the Electoral College so “antiquated.”