Originally Posted by
rickair7777
The reason the electoral system isn't "fair" is because all of the states signed on to that CONSTITUTIONAL provision when they joined the union. Presumably many would not have joined if that would have subjugated them to the tyranny of being ruled by the populist whims of people in distant, more populous states. Hmmm, that actually sounds a lot like the American Revolution.
There's a reason it's the way it is.
Don't like it? That's what constitutional conventions are for. Is that too hard? Then try to implement a non-constitutional electoral system and impose that on other states, and see what happens.
The electoral college is based on members of the total of House of Representatives and Senators for each state. Some say they want to change the two Senators per state in the constitution. They may not be aware the Constitution indicates changing the Senators to be based on population requires approval of every one of the low population states. It, in essence, is a “poison” pill. Cannot change it. Never get approved.
Further, what about a Constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College? A Constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of both the House and the Senate. Then 3/4 of all the states. That includes low population states. Never get approved.
The other option being suggested in state legislatures is their electors would go to the majority of popular vote. These states are highly Democratic states. When the popular vote is Democratic, those states’ electors would have gone Democratic anyway. In effect, no change. When the popular vote swings Republican, their highly Democratic state electors cast would be required to be the Republican slate. Those states would scream blood murder. But they made their bed, and they must lie in it.