You keep dodging the question - If it's such a meritorious idea, then why subvert the Constitution? Why not address the problem head on with a Constitutional Amendment where 3/4ths of the states have to ratify, rather than just 270 Electors? Isn't that in keeping with the spirit and and intent of the Founding Fathers? You remember those guys, right?
Again, that is how conservatives think. What are you, exactly?
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that needs to be changed in order to have a national popular vote for President. Awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes inside the state is not in the U.S. Constitution. It is strictly a matter of state law. The state-by-state winner-take-all rule was not the choice of the Founding Fathers, as indicated by the fact that the winner-take-all rule was used by only 3 states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789. The fact that Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all rule is another reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. All the U.S. Constitution says is “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the states over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.” A federal constitutional amendment is not needed to change state laws.