I agree.
There were some interesting discussions of this on C-Span back in 2000.
If we get rid of the electoral college, presidential candidates will, in essence, only need to go to big cities to campaign. They will not need to explain their message to a variety of voters.
Without the electoral college, a demagogue can appeal to a few large special interest groups and win. His message will not need to be tempered by the wishes of people outside those interest groups. (This would favor the Democrats, of course, who have a history of appealing to special interests.)
Without an electoral college, someone like Ross Perot or Howard Dean, who has a smaller, but fervent, following, has a much better chance of winning.
No thanks, Dianne.
If Americans lose confidence in a directly elected President in less than four years, there should be some provision to vote him out of office before his 4 years are completed.
The Democrats like to pretend that Republicans are extremists, but Feinstein's goal, in getting rid of the electoral college, is to get rid of moderation.
Under the "popular" vote system, a "blue" state can give its self a louder voice by allowing more and more vote fraud.
If we had a national popular vote, I predict that presidential candidates would spend all their time campaigning in that portion of the U.S. that lies within a nine-hour drive of Columbus, Ohio.
The Electoral College also serves the purpose of isolating fraud in elections, so that a place like New York City or Los Angeles cannot swing the national election by stuffing their own ballot boxes. With the EC, the worst that can be done by those cities is to swing their state. Without the EC, every city and county would likely feel that they would have to protect their own interests through their own approaches to election fraud. Yes, the Founding Fathers were very wise.