But that said, I think the EC can be more or less fixed, or at least rendered much more of a moot point. Getting rid of the EC would require a Constitutional amendment, but there's a low-hanging fruit in the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. This law, which I think could be found actually unconstitutional in the courts, is what locks in the number of Congressional Representatives--it's the reason why the citizens of states like Illinois, New York, and California don't have a number of Reps proportional to states like Alabama, Montana, and Alaska, and consequentially, why the EC disproportionately favors the Slave States. Getting this law changed, either in Congress (probably not going to happen) or in the Courts (much more likely) would instantly shift the balance of power in this country.
The sticky wicket is, Courts have already been presented with challenges to this law, but decided not to rule due to "lack of standing." Their stance last time it was challenged (I believe in 2010) was that this was a political matter and should be changed by Congress... unfortunately, Congressional Republicans are the ones who stand to benefit the very most from this unconstitutional Act, which feels like the very definition of a conflict of interest. But there has been no real definitive ruling on the Constitutionality of this law, as far as I could find (of course, if anyone else has any info to the contrary, please do correct me).
If the EC and the Congress could actually be proportional to the popular vote, I doubt any of us would even bear witness to another Rethuglican president in our lifetimes.
(Edit: I actually think the EC could be a great thing as originally conceptualized. A final check to mob rule, as was pointed out above. But with today's party loyalty on steroids, it cannot work as intended).
= new reply since forum marked as read
