comment: >
  
  Thomas Jefferson literally said:
  (paraphrasing) "The Constitution should be amended and rewritten every 20 years. We today shouldn't be creating laws for people alive hundreds of years after we are gone."
context: “The Electoral College now – which has given us five popular-vote losers as president in our history, twice in this century alone – has become a danger, not just to democracy, but to the American people. It was a danger on January 6,” the Maryland Democrat said in an interview with Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that aired Sunday. “There are so many curving byways and nooks and crannies in the Electoral College, that there are opportunities for a lot of strategic mischief. We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else. Whoever gets the most votes wins.”
  
  It'll take a constitutional amendment, but it's worth pursuing. >
  
  The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is still a thing, though the only possible additions to it at the moment are Michigan and Maine, which would bring the total to 214 EVs (of 270 needed to override the EC). Unfortunately neither Nevada or Virginia joined when they had Democratic trifectas. >
  
  As a Nevadan, seeing Sisolak veto the bill that would include us in the compact really annoyed me. >
  
  Republicans won't support EC Reform. At this point the EC is the only way they could ever win the White House again. >
  
  Exactly right. The last time they won the popular vote for president was 2004. Before that, 1988. Democrats won 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. And yet, folks born in 1988 have had republican presidents half their lives. >
  
  Since Nixon's resignation, they've won 4 to the Democrats 8, and Democrats have won 7 out of the last 8. When the Republicans dominated the political landscape in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it forced Democrats to completely change their ideals and become more progressive. I highly doubt that happens with Republicans, but it would be nice. >
  
  Isn’t the Presidential election the only election in the United States where the candidate with the fewest votes ( can ) 
  win >
  
  As far as I know you are correct. In some states electors are required to cast their votes to whoever wins the popular vote, but in some states they can choose who they want regardless of the popular vote. It’s such a pointless and overly confusing system >
  
  it doesnt even matter. if all electors vote with the popular vote as they should the guy with less votes can still win since not all electors represent the same number of people.
  for one in most states its winner take all so if the republican wins the states they win with 51% and the dem wins with 100% it is possible the dem will lose while winning the popular vote.
  plus theres always minimums and rounding errors which directly effects the number of people represented by a elector. >
  
  The Founders were amazing. However, what's impossible for anyone is to see the future. The Electoral College made sense for awhile. It does not anymore. My vote in Missouri should not be more valuable when electing the POTUS than someone's in California, Texas, New York, or Florida.
  I would love ranked choice voting in all elections.
  EDITED TO ADD:
  I wanted to point out a few more things. There are many things the Founders did that we, as a society, have come to realize as time has went on that needed to be tweaked a bit. More than just white male property owners can vote now. We directly elect our Senators now. POTUS and VP run on a single ticket now. Etc. They're still amazing people, but we can also improve upon the groundwork they've laid as time goes on. >
  
  The most interesting aspect of American politics is the sheer unwillingness to keep the constitution and governmental legal basis updated to today's needs, in stead of clinging to a torn up document older than balls while waving a gun around shouting "this is the holy grail" repeatedly.