USA's majority of voters shouldn't simply determine the presidency.

USA's majority of voters shouldn't simply determine the presidency.

In my less than humble opinion, the number of members representing each individual state within the United States' House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Electoral College were among the first constitutional convention's compromises between the interests of the more populous and less populous sovereign states.
Whatever is proposed to replace the U.S. Electoral College, should be required to continue respecting our historic compromises between the interests of the more populous and less populous sovereign states. For that reason, the office of U.S. President shouldn't be determined by just the simple majority of our nation's voters. Respectfully, Supposn

Robert Urbanek said:

A majority of voters determine the governors in each state, some of which have large populations or larger economies than many nations. If democracy can work for states, why can't it work for countries? Or would you create an electoral college in every state election to "balance" the power between less and more populated counties?

Click to expand...

Robert Urbanek, the numbers of each state's representatives within our U.S. Senate, and House of Representatives, and electoral college was, and continues to be derived from negotiated compromises made within USA's original constitutional convention.

It's doubtful if the Government of the United States of America could have been created without such a compromise between the more and the less populous sovereign colonies that had declared their independence from Great Britain. Those less populous colonies, (i.e. the minority) chose not to a proposed new government's constitution that populous sovereign colonies would require them to generally be governed by legislators and executives primarily motivated by the better interests of the more populous colonies, (i.e. the majority) colonies.

If we were to assume a bipartisan political alliance of USA's greater populous states could concur on a constitutional amendment for henceforth electing our presidents by national populous vote, why would the less the legislators of USA's less populous sovereign states vote to then be them to generally governed by legislators and executives primarily motivated by the better interests of the more populous (i.e. the majority) of U.S. States?

In our current political climate, bipartisan agreements upon any controversial proposals are much less likely. Are you proposing another civil war among the U.S. States? A constitutional amendment for henceforth electing USA's presidents by the national populous vote wouldn't be supported by ¾ of the U.S. States governments or their states House and Senate delegations. You're suggesting the dissolving the 50 United States of America or another civil war? Respectfully, Supposn