Yes and no. I think we should go to 'apportioned" electoral votes.
Naw, Haz. That's the same as the popular vote, but scaled down to electoral college numbers. The electoral college prevents large cities (massive population, generally liberals now) from basically running the Fed government. If we had just a popular vote for president, the rural states lose all power. And it is much easier to commit some type of fraud on a national basis on a popular vote than it is on an electoral college system. Oh, and with the new generation of history ignorant, 'what can you promise me and how fast can you give it to me' voters, we'd never see a republican in office. Members of the Electoral College can vote independently of their states popular vote. They are under no obligation to follow the popular vote.
The 17th Amendment was the start of the decline of the United States of America in favor of just plain America. Why the states ratified this abortion of states rights is beyond me. No longer did the individual state decide who would best look out for that state's interests inside Fedzilla, but opened the Senate up to the whim of the Great Unwashed. For chrissake, I can't tell you how many people I talked to that were totally clueless about the basics of our governmental system, let alone any specifics... and they vote.
The original Constitution and the Bill of Rights are chock full of safeties that would prevent the establishment of what would effectively become a dictatorship, but we are short-circuiting those one by one.
Sometimes we lose track of exactly how brilliant the Founders were.
