Living up to your name. We’ve tried not democracy and see how that’s working. I’ll take “stupid” democracy for a change and adjust as needed. Protecting administrative units is pretty far down my list of priorities.

You can legally keep property that is delivered to you that you didn’t order. The article makes that clear.

My thought too.  The cops wanted the TV.

“There is no support for your assertion. Only confirmation bias.”

If we can’t agree that Gore and Clinton were the candidates preferred by the voters when they won the popular vote then this is a pointless discussion. Votes are preferences, and vote counts are facts.

I have no concern for states. I have concern for people. Everything is always subject to renegotiation based on new conditions. That’s why the amendment process to the Constitution was created, and why the EC has evolved with so much variation and flexibility in it’s execution. That flexibility can be used to adjust…

Don’t know. She’s admitted it was a mistake, but that’s easy to say in hindsight. I have no insight into the factors that determined her vote, and make no excuses for her. I’m not pretending she is an ideal politician, only that Bush and Trump are all the evidence we need to be convinced the EC has caused enormous…

Clinton won his two elections by popular vote margins of 5.5% and 8.5% over the GOP candidate. You’re right that’s not the system we currently use to elect Presidents, which is precisely the topic of the article and this entire discussion. It should be. What’s your point?

Hillary wasn’t a candidate for President in 2000, and didn’t make the decision to invade Iraq. Bush did. He was elected due to the EC reversing the popular vote. If not for the EC, Gore would have been President, and Bush, Cheney and the other Neo-Cons wouldn’t have been in a position to determine our foreign policy.

It’s a fact that 2 of the last 3 Presidents took office after losing the popular vote, and were not the preferred choice of the electorate. That’s contrary to the fundamental concept of democracy.  What’s opinion is that somehow an archaic system of using intermediaries operating under varying rules by State, who…

No it’s not. Fairer to what and to whom? Land area? The only context for fairness is to citizens. Citizens vote, and whoever gets the support of the most citizens should represent them, and is loaned the power to make decisions and laws on their behalf. There is no concept of whoever lives around the least number of…

You’re conflating rights with laws. No one is talking about taking away rights that are protected for each citizen. What we have now is a tyranny of the minority. How is that better? How about protecting the right of every person’s vote counting equally? Why aren’t we protecting that? What ordains the minority as…

The myths are addressed here:

You can make up 1000 explanations for Hillary losing, but the simple fact remains if the popular vote determined who’s President she would be in the WH instead of Agent Orange. And we would not have invaded Iraq causing the deaths of 100's of thousands. The stakes are enormous and we have failed badly. It’s time to…

Shit a bigger brick than after the election of Trump by the majority who didn’t vote for him? Very hard to imagine.

We don’t have to work on only one problem at a time.  After Bush and Trump fixing the EC is a priority.

That’s nonsense. You can’t say you believe in one person one vote and favor the EC as it currently operates. The popular vote is not and would never be a “tiny elite”. It’s by definition a majority of the voters, or at the very least a plurality for the most preferred candidate. You are making the very obvious fallacy…

Articles on this topic should include a reference to the National Popular Vote movement.

You’re wrong. The EC doesn’t have to be changed, just the way the states require their EC delegates to vote. The movement to make the EC consistent with the popular vote is well underway, and could easily work without any Constitutional or federal law changes.

Yep. It’s happening.