This article says nothing about how it will be banished and is more like a wish. You need 2/3 of states to change and ratify the constitution. Its not even close to being banished.

While I'd like to agree with him here, if John C Dvorak says it's true, you can bet against it nearly 100% successfully.

Look at some of these doozies... [1]

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_C._Dvorak

I get where this comes from, but it’s very obviously wrong. It acts like media is the only group with money and influence. Many, many, many interests depend on the voting power that the Electoral College supplies to resource-rich states out west. I’d bet my left arm that the Electoral College will not disappear in my lifetime.

Why is the conversation always "abolish vs keep as is?" The EC seems like a good idea that brings equity to a diverse nation but needs some updating as things have changed dramatically since its creation. There are other possible changes that might help, like removing the winner take all situation. But just basing on popular vote alone creates the same problem we're in but from the other direction. We need cities but we also need the rural areas (like our farm lands) and we need to represent both. But rural areas will never have the population size/density of cities. We shouldn't let fly over states decide the elections just the same way we shouldn't let California and New York decide them. There's got to be a better solution here that provides good equity.

The issue is not with the Electoral College, but with the artificial limit on the House of Representatives. The limit of 435 Reps skews the numbers.

House of Representatives is suppose to be 1 Rep per a fixed number of people. But Congress put a hard limit of 435, that means Small States have more people per Rep than Large States.

For example, Wyoming has 1 Rep for 480900 people.

California has 1 rep per 736000 people. To be fair and agree with the original intent of the US Constitution, California should have about 82 Reps instead of 53.

Texas for that matter should really have 52 Reps instead of 36 as it as now. The way it is now it has one rep per 700279 people.

Fixing that limit should solve a lot of problems

Here's what I don't understand - this is is constantly framed as a matter of reforming Federal law, when the states could remedy this themselves by changing from a winner-gets-all paradigm to a Maine- or Nebraska-like system that allocates delegates proportionally.

The proximate reason why they don't do this, I would imagine, is that in the short term a party-controlled state wouldn't want a bunch of its Presidential vote delegates to go to the other party; e.g., California Democrats, who currently have the political power to change how their state awards delegates, don't want dozens of delegates going to the GOP and vice versa for Texas Republicans not wanting a bunch of Texas delegates going to the Democrats.

On the other hand, states like Ohio and Florida want to keep the influence they have as swing states -- they want presidential candidates to spend an insanely disproportionate amount of time campaigning there and making promises about future policy decisions that disproportionately affect local industries. If they awarded delegates proportionally, they'd lose the attention they enjoy every four years.

I'm not sure what the way to break the equilibrium would be, but do think that the solution to this is action on the state level rather than Federal. Am I missing anything?

Nationalpopularvote.com is the (exhaustive) website for the interstate compact, which has an actual chance of enactment by 2024..

Now if only they could do away with gerrymandering

Given that republicans have lost the popular vote in every election since 2000 I don't see them getting on board with going to a straight popular vote anytime in the near future to determine the Presidential election.

> This dichotomy between the two types of states along with constant usage of the terms "divisive" and "divisiveness" by the media (and now the politicians themselves) promotes the notion that we are splitting apart along political lines in ways that we've never witnessed before. This is hardly true as any history professor will attest.

Citation needed

I think a better intermediate step would be to get rid of winner take all electoral college votes. Do it by county. This would move closer to a democracy but still retain the form of a republic.

It won't happen until foreign actors deliberately exploit the electoral college by taking actions that harm the GOP specifically in swing states. As long as the electoral college gives an edge to the GOP, none of the reliably red states will want to abolish it, and together with the swing states benefiting directly from the electoral college, there aren't enough votes to get rid of it.

If the president is elected by popular vote, then significant amounts of voting fraud in any one state becomes a national issue. So does significant amounts of voter suppression. Opening that can of worms to be fought on a national scale... well, be careful what you wish for.

Zero chance, if only because the resulting chaos would put the assets of the wealthy at risk.

NPVIC is state level-electoral meddling exactly on a par with what 45 tried in Michigan and Georgia, and aiming for the same outcome. The democrats pushing for it are not trying to correct some abstract statistical imbalance or make it easier for third party candidates to get seats: they are trying to swing elections in those states democratic, pure and simple.

I think that people aren't addressing the root cause. The existence of a two-party system is intended to keep parties in power. Yes, there are other parties, such as Constitution or Libertatian, but until things change they are inconsequential.

People should elect candidates, not parties. If we do not stop electing parties, we will continue to elect gatekeepers and politicians who spend all their time creating and then pretending they can't solve wedge issues, while spending money frivolously to bribe people and pay-off the corporations who later hire them.

These politicians, who all seem to hate each other, are friends with each other, and they play citizens for fools. Why don't we all take a step back and stop playing _their_ game? The problem isn't the electoral college, it's the people who we let matriculate and the party system.

The elephant in the room is voter fraud. If we switch to raw vote count then it takes just one loosely regulated precinct to flood the election with fraudulent votes to win the election, and anyone can do this. Sure, this time around one group may win the fraud vote, but next time it will be another group, and the the best fraudsters will conspire to run the country and we will cease to be a democracy and become a kleptocracy. At least with the electoral college the fraud has to be much better organized and spread more across the country.