Yeah. That link in my post from 270towin. If electors were doled out by population Trump would have got 303 instead of 306. If you want true majority vote then the EC has to go. Good luck with getting a constitutional amendment done.
If Trump starts a Nuclear war with NK. Then it might work by 2020.
I just realized constitutional amendments need ratified by the states. The repubs have 32 state legislators. You need 3/4 or 38 legislators to ratify it.
At this point it really would take nuclear war.
Article 5:
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nationās frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[1] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by eitherāas determined by Congressāthe legislatures of three-quarters of the states or state ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.[2] The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a stateās population or length of time in the Union.
Additionally, Article V temporarily shielded certain clauses in Article I from being amended. The first clause in Section 9, which prevented Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves prior to 1808, and the fourth clause in that same section, a declaration that direct taxes must be apportioned according to state populations, were explicitly shielded from Constitutional amendment prior to 1808. It also shields the first clause of Article I, Section 3, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate, from being amended, though not absolutely.
I donāt expect the electoral college to go anywhere for the entire lifespan of America. Ultimately, you have to get the support of pols who are usually very much so in favor of bureaucratic methods of elections as they can be more easily manipulated.
I donāt really see that happening.
Wouldnāt take a constitutional amendment to do an end-run around the Electoral College and turn the POTUS race into a direct election:
Thatās why I said the EC is a weighting system in the POTUS election that adjusts the value of your vote up or down.
Imo saying we donāt have a weighted vote for POTUS but we have a weighted vote for EC members who vote for POTUS is a distinction without a difference.
HILLARY SUPPORTER. 
That would require those states to change their faithless elector laws.
So if your link is correct that means that say a state is carried by candidate A, but the national popular vote goes to candidate B then that stateās electors go to candidate B.
Congrats, you just disenfranchised that stateās voters. That makes less sense than the current system. For instance: Trump carried OH, PA and FL. So when the national popular vote comes in for Hillary those states give all their electors to Hillary?
Torches and pitchforks man. SCOTUS suits for years. Pence would be President if this happens in 2020 because of the 12th amendment. Good luck.
You have to get rid of the states. Theyāre not needed anymore. They were only useful for owning slaves. I also propose changing the name of this landmass to āFreedomlandā to better capture what it is. United States? Like, how can they be both states AND united when they never existed separately? Totes confused.
Not at all, because it would be the voters themselves, either through the actions of their elected officials or via direct referendum, who would have entered into the compact. In other words, the voters of that state would have approved the Compact a priori, so there would be no basis for feeling disenfranchised.
Further, it could be argued that the Compact would actually serve to enfranchise vast numbers of voters. As you know, the current electoral map has but a few states that are āin playā; the rest being foregone conclusions. Thus, under the current system, people in forgone-conclusion states (I am one) have no real reason to vote. This is especially true for those of us whose vote will be cast for the candidate who is going to loseāthe Dem in my case; the Rep in states like CA, NY and MA. But if the Compact were enacted, there would no longer be any foregone-conclusion states, because every vote would contribute equally to the national totals. Suddenly all those Reps in CA and NY would have a reason to vote. Sounds like the opposite of disenfranchisement to me.
If the Compact were enacted, it would happen well prior to any POTUS election. Thus, the subsequent casting of electoral votes wouldnāt come as a shock to anyoneāvoters would know long before the election was held that their stateās electoral votes would be pledged to the winner of the popular vote. Not saying there wouldnāt be court filings; just saying it wouldnāt be the sort of unexpected, coup-type event that leads to torches and pitchforks.
I used to think the same thing. However technology and redistricting have changed that. Not to geek out on everyone as Im just a meat head but I will try and explain it as good as I can. Political marketing can now target specfic areas, demographics like never before. Through using data scientist and SM advertisng firms. Which is pennies compared to mainstream media btw. What that means is you can geo target voters and exploit the system. So just not a huge fan. I think popular would be less exploitable.
Ya, Iām aware that data analytics is becoming the trend. I believe it was Cruz that was using it extensively in the primary iirc. I donāt think that negates the necessity of āgrassrootsā campaigning particularly in the early states. I do agree that it will probably become less and less relevant over time.
Its a scary thing. Its wave of future. I run a marketing firm and more and more SM is the thing. I attend about 2 of these big data summits a yearā¦ I hate it Giant nerd fest. But these data guys are changing the game.
What we can do now to target people and more importantly influence them is crazy. Most of it you dont even notice. Also FB, Twitter, IG is highly unregulated so its almost impossible to break a lawā¦ Unlike radio and TV and other traditional media
DATA MEN. ASSEMBLLLLLLLLLE
Im not a data guy but write checks to data guys. Im more the sleezy sales guy if Im being honestā¦But I appreciate yall
You just described me. I sit around half the day providing data to a sleazy mortgage based sales team.
At least youāre on the sales side. Those checks are considerably bigger most of the time 
Thats why I do it Im a whoreā¦ I do lots of Mortgage stuff btwā¦Primarily marketing for mortgage firms these days haha
Thats kinda why I was hoping for Bushā¦ The mortgage biz was bonkers under his reignā¦ Was hoping for moreā¦ Id really like a Italian car in my garage
Then you need to become a ādigitalā Loan officer, instead of a regular one. We just brought one on board to add to our collection that closed ~125Mil in volume last year.
The commission check on that can get you one hellava Italian car.
Actually, if you have a good data set, and by that I mean of sufficient data quality, you can play around with different target variables during predictive modeling and create pretty accurate models for all sort of crazy stuff, especially in the finance industry.
The next big frontier is maintenance of large buildings and facilities - by predicting a small part of outages and breakdowns you can save a lot of money on maintenance.
Makes you wonder what Facebook and Google are doingā¦
I do a bit of modeling, but not all that much. Itās mostly predictive sales numbers and evaluating possible areas to expand to (freebie, if youāre in the mortgage game, get your ass into Utah)
Probably predicting how often we spend on their platforms while pooping out Taco Bell with a 1% margin of error. When youāve got data sets THAT big you can predict almost anything.