Miguel_Zorro said:
Back in the day the technology to easily elect a President by popular vote was apparently not there. Today, it is (except for some states like Florida, which for reasons I don't understand can't count votes), and I think they should change the Presidential election system to either popular vote, or at least to assign each State's electors proportional to vote. Today some smaller states have disproportionate say - a vote in Wyoming, for example, counts twice as much as a vote in California. So that might change too. It would also change the campaigns themselves. Today they spend every election in the same 11 states and ignore massive states like New York, California, and Texas. If they changed the system you'd see Hilary Clinton in California a lot more and in Ohio a lot less.
|
The framers intentionally strayed from direct democracy, not because it was difficult to implement, but because they believed it to be mob rule. I like the idea of ranked voting to allow for multiple parties. Dual federalism is still a thing in the U.S, and California/New York/Texas have no right to control the political destinies of smaller states with different interests.