(03-22-2019, 03:40 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 02:40 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: I think the States would rightly tell you to piss off, that how they appoint their electors is up to them. If we're going to dream then I would radically change the process by eliminating the entire popular vote. Instead each State Legislature would appoint their 1 elector. That would make state elections matter, bring the political process (and influence) closer to home, and eliminate much of the waste of public campaigns. The candidate selection process is up to the parties, but there would be no General Election; the 50 States would elect the President, and the House would cast the deciding vote if needed. But nothing like that will ever happen, it takes too much power from the elites.

We're both dreaming of a constitutional amendment here.  I think the lesson of the 17th amendment is that state legislators want to hear what the people have to say on state matters only.  They preferred not to involve themselves in DC's fights.  Your idea that each state should simply get one vote is more like how the EU appoints its President. When French people vote for the President of France, they don't give much thought to, "I wonder who he will vote for to be EU President?"  Because the EU president doesn't have much actual power.  The US President has much more power.  If our governor or legislature had control over Florida's one vote for President, it would be the only thing our press would want to ask them about.