With a strict popular vote, individual states have no say in who becomes president. Itās not the end of, but an erosion of that system and John is right about it being a step towards mob rule.
How do you feel about lifting the cap on the number of representatives in the house to an even 500āwhich also increases the number of electors by the same amount?
If we got rid of the EC and elected the president by popular vote weād still be a republic that practices representative democracy. The change would be an executive voted as a representative of the citizens instead of the states. The EC is left over from an earlier time when the states were more independent, both people and information moved much slower, and less people were educated. All votes by citizens for the Presidency should be equal. The low population states already have plenty enough power through the legislative branch.
Personally Iād be fine going back to letting the states choose senators in exchange for getting rid of the EC.
Because mob rule would result in this country coming apart at the seams.
People in the cities cannot understand rural life, People in California or NY have no concept what life is like in Nebraska or Utah.
States as well as individuals have interests that are supposed to be respected, considered, and given equal time by our presidents and legislators as per our constitution.
From a modern perspective we are a republic because we elect our leaders and decision makers as oppose to having a monarchy. From the perspective of the Founders we are a republic because we have a constitution, separation of powers, and practice representative democracy.
In regards to the Senate, could you be more specific?