Quote:It may make more sense, but hey, the system has been in place for well over 200 years.
Actually, this isn't true. The system has evolved.
The Twelfth Amendment (1804) changed the electoral college procedure somewhat because of a completely screwy election in 1800, when the electoral college technically tied, even though the intention of the college was to make Jefferson president.
(Parts of the Twelfth Amendment were in turn amended in by the Twentieth Amendment (1933), which addressed presidential succession. Succession was changed again by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment (1967).)
The electoral college was also changed by the Twenty-Third Amendment (1961), which assigned electors to the District of Columbia for the first time.
Another, more significant change to the "system" came in 1913, when the Seventeenth Amendment required direct election of U.S. Senators. Before then, the constitution charged state legislatures with selecting U.S. senators.
And we all know about the Thirteenth and Ninteenth amendments, which extended the right to vote to African-American men and women, respectively.
In that context, my proposal -- an adjustment to the electoral college so that it better reflects the U.S. population as a whole -- is hardly radical. It fact, it fits with the spirit of many past amendments, which is to improve the chances the will of the people can be heard.
Of course, a GOP led Congress would never support this, and for the same reasons GOP members of Congress have long fought the idea of allowing the 550,000 people of Washington, D.C. to be represented by voting members of Congress. They rather like the system tilted their way.