Maryland approved a measure to have its electors follow popular vote regardless of the statewide result if and only if, enough states to comprise an electoral majority approve similar measures.
That's from 2007? Either way, seems like the ultimate abdication in state sovereignty. I wonder how the citizens of reliably blue MD will feel when (not if, when) a Republican wins the popular vote?
Kind of speaking of, here's an interesting theory:
The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states
Like many components of our founding, the EC may have been borne out of necessity from our country's original sin. However, I disagree that this compromise is indicative of our racist heritage and nothing more. The underlying principles behind the EC are still sound IMO.
First, the EC allows every corner of our country a voice in the election of the president. And whether or not that began as an appeasement to Southern slave-owning states is largely irrelevant since there is just as much reason to continue this tradition today. Take a look at the map below. If you think we are polarized today, how do you think it would look if the presidency was decided by a handful of densely populated areas at the expense of the vast majority of the geography of the country? Voters in these rural areas just voted, overwhelmingly, for the most hated candidate in history (well, the second most hated I guess). It's easy to dismiss these 60M people as ignorant racists, but what I have been trying to point out in the last week is that the majority of them were simply saying "fuck you" to a system that has left them behind (a point a certain senator from VT made quite effectively). Allowing the president to be decided by the major metropolitan areas and no where else would be a kick in the nuts for them from which I don't see how we come back.
Second (and somewhat related), the EC protects our national unity (as fragmented as that may be) in a way that popular voting does not. Also the EC (along with the Senate) provides an incentive for the federal government to consider policies that work for the entire country and not just the coasts. Now, I'm sympathetic to the "one person, one vote" view that the EC treats a person's vote in Nebraska to be worth more than one in New York. But if California voters feel like their vote is somehow "less" than someone in South Dakota, maybe they should consider their place in our union and whether or not they want to reevaluate that relationship (something that, apparently, has picked up steam in the wake of this election
Finally, one of the greatest logical fallacies practiced by proponents is that the election would have worked out EXACTLY the same in a popular voting system. Republicans don't spend time or money in Oregon and New Jersey just like Dems don't go to Oklahoma or Idaho. So you can't compare popular vote totals in the system we currently have for the one you want; change the system, change the score. The Christian conservative in California will be sure to show up in this system. Would that result in greater turnout and thus greater engagement in the political process than we currently have? Maybe. But can you imagine the amount of money candidates would need to compete across all 50 states? I don't see how you can get around the fact that popular voting would lead to an explosion in the incestuous relationship of politicians and their donors.
So, if you want to upend the system that has created the most stable form of governance in the history of civilization - one far that has indisputably been more effective at consistently and peacefully transitioning power from one party to the next than any parliamentary setup - it shouldn't be on the back of an emotional plea of "we were robbed" following a difficult campaign. And it certainly shouldn't be under the guise of "that's racist" as implied by the Vox article. That shit never works out well. See here
for an example.