Frankly, I have seen nothing to change the opinions I set forth and updates I recommended a year ago. Rather than go on again at length and bore everyone, I'll just tell everyone to re-read what I said there if they are interested.

I will only say that I'm even less optimistic than I was then.

While those of you who have pointed out that "we're a republic, not a democracy" are correct as a matter of original intent, I don't think that's relevant any more. Because most Americans (a) don't know the difference, (b) believe in populist/progressivist enable-the-power-of-all "democracy" notions far more than they believe in Madisonian/Jeffersonian "limitation-the-power-of-any" constitutional republicanism, or (c) both.

Any constitutional change today, whether tinkering through individual amendments or radical change through open constitutional convention, facebooking, whatever, is going to follow paths formed from the ideals of populist/progressive/social democracy. Not the paths of Burke/Paine/Madison/Jefferson republicanism.

And we've got far too many people who are perfectly capable of being the next Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre.

I'm not sure we have any who are capable of being George Washington.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

Update the constitution for what?

Like the current and recent administrations adhere to it anyway. #-o

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

Indirectly, yes. The number of Electoral Votes per state is equal to the number of representatives and senators that state sends to Washington, D.C.

By the way, I forgot to mention in my previous post that it is the states' own fault that the Electoral College is not as democratic as it could be. In almost every state, Electoral College votes are apportioned on a "winner-take-all" basis, rather than proportionately according to the popular vote in that state. As far as I know, these rules are established by the state electoral commissions, as opposed to being written into the state constitutions, and thus could be amended at will. If the states wanted to make the Electoral College more responsive to the popular vote, they could accomplish that quite easily.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

I have said for a while that the all or none electoral systems most states use isn't the way it should be.
...The thing is, I've gone back and through Reagan, all results would have been the same. Close in most cases but still the same results.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

I have said for a while that the all or none electoral systems most states use isn't the way it should be.

Use CA for example, nobody campaigns there because it always goes Democrat. When watching the results live. When the CA polls closed, they gave Obama the win the next minute. 55 electoral votes, BAM. What should be done is, look at look at how much of the popular vote each candidate gets, and using percentage, divide and give the electorals.

Obama 59.3%, or 32 electorals.
Romney 38.3%, or 21 electorals.

Which is 53 leaving 2 unallocated. Any unallocated electorals would go to whoever wins the state popular vote.

This should remove the "My vote doesn't count" line of thinking because one vote could be the difference between getting 21 or 22 electoral votes. It would make each state important so candidates would need to go to them all.

The thing is, I've gone back and through Reagan, all results would have been the same. Close in most cases but still the same results.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 

I'm curious. Does your method here take into account that voting patterns might be different if people knew going in that electoral votes would be proportionately assigned? Would the popular vote in California fall into the same percentages if they knew vote counting would take more than a minute after poll closing?

Originally Posted by: Wade