A federal court ruling has spotlighted the confounding nature of the system, which twice in the last five elections put presidents into office against the wishes of the majority of American voters.
This is a questionable statement. Hillary got about 48% of the vote in 2016. Al Gore in 2000 got about 48.5% if I recall correctly. Point is, the “winner of the popular vote” in each of the elections they are referring to, did not crack 50% of the vote.
These candidates got a plurality of the vote, which is different from a majority. Perhaps the editorial board of this newspaper ignores simple facts, because it would conflict with their narrative that somehow a majority of the American people preferred Hillary but she didn’t win.
Look at another way, with Hillary’s 48%, a comfortable majority of 52% wanted someone other than Hillary.
If that's the way you want to look at it, an even more comfortable majority of 54% wanted someone other than Trump.
Now we see the harm done by the Supreme Court when it agreed to hear Bush v. Gore, a nonjusticeable political question if ever there was one.
The whole POINT of the Electoral College architecture was to make sure that the national government had no role in choosing their own replacements.
ELECTORS choose the President. Voters have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, except as their State Legislatures allow.
Electors are State officials, appointed by their States. They are not accountable to the Executive Branch. They are not accountable to Congress except as provided in the Constitution. And they are not accountable to Article III courts.
The only way to bringing in some sort of legally binding "national popular vote" is to create a national authority to supervise, tabulate, and authenticate a result, which is EXCATLY what the Electoral College was designed to prevent.