How big of a vote gap would it take for you to drop the Electoral College?

[hollodero]

(04-03-2019, 08:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Framers recognized that this nation was a federation of states that should be treated with, and accorded, equal status despite economic or population differences.  It is a coalition of equals even when they are not equals. The Senate is one function of this, the EC has become another.  Making the POTUS election a strictly national vote issue eliminates the say of the states in who ultimately governs them.  This seems in direct contradiction to the intended purpose of the United States Constitution and the intention of the Framers. 

The EC doesn't effective make the states "equal despite population differences" though anyway. Because I feel that would have to mean every state gets the same amount of electors. Since that isn't the case, the principle doesn't seem to stand anyway?

(04-03-2019, 08:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except they aren't, because EC votes are determined by HoR numbers of Representatives plus Senate members.  Given that every state gets two senators, after that their EC votes are entirely determined by HoR representation.  If you think this is inherently unfair then you are arguing for the dismantling of the entire system of US governance.

I don't feel I'm doing that - I sure would - but I don't think going with the popular vote for POTUS elections dismantles the entire system of governance. I don't see the compelling coherence there at all.
Now getting rid of the two senators per state, which I absolutely would deem more fair, possibly would do so. But I'm not arguing that, nor do I see it as a logical consequence of popular vote vs. EC for POTUS votes.

(04-03-2019, 08:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your low turnout argument is, by far, the best argument against the EC in this thread.  I quite agree, a GOP voter in a deep blue state or vice versa, is far less likely to go to the polls and help decide other issue on the ballot.  That being said, I still think the EC strikes the best balance between honoring population numbers and ensuring every state has a voice in the election of the POTUS.

And I'd still say the say of the people should count more in a federal POTUS election. Congress, OK that's different, I get that. Representatives from each state get voted for in the states, then get together in Washington and negotiate stuff. And smaller states are overrepresented, but I'm not suggesting changing that. But POTUS, as I see it, should be for all Americans and so every American vote should count equally in my understanding of a fair nationwide election (always putting aside how some Americans have no vote at all, which is still absurd). I get the points against it somehow, I'm just not convinced.