I know that the howls of protest would be the same regarding repealing the 17th amendment, which is that it's a step back from democracy, that legislation to remove peoples' right to vote is anti-American, and so on.
That said, what if a state appealed to its voters by saying that the Electoral College slate will be determined by the party that holds the most seats in the state legislature's lowest chamber?
So, this means that state voters would have to vote for their assemblymen, and then the party with the majority in the Assembly selects the Electors to the Electoral College.
This leverages the people's representation, assuming that the majority will for their statehouse aligns with the majority will for the White House, but there is no statewide "popular vote" for President.
Would it fly? Who knows? People might say that it doesn't reduce election costs because it takes away only one question on the ballot. On the other hand, it would eliminate endless Presidential campaign commercials on TV if the elections are for local assembly candidates.
Imagine an election in a state where the majority in the Assembly selects the Electors. You would be voting for Joey Bagadonuts for your local district, and if there are ads at all (beyond lawn signs and mailers), what would they say? Joey would say that he supports Trump while Mary Bagelschmear would support Bernie Ocasio Harris. Meanwhile, Joey wants to improve the local high school while Mary wants to raise taxes for the hospital.
How do the national candidate ads play out in this state? Do Trump hold a rally with Joey Bagadonuts? What if there are a dozen Assembly districts in the state? Does he hold one large one, or several regional ones, or does he stay away and just endorse Joey?
Meanwhile, the other states don't get a popular vote for that state.
-PJ
Nice - and more viable that way.