Both of these ideas would have awful consequences. Among them are:
- Already extensive voter fraud will explode. Contrary to the oft repeated claims of academics, who are in the pocket of the Democrat Socialist Party, that voter fraud is insignificant, actual election managers have known for decades that every Democrat Socialist Party Presidential Candidate has 150,000 fraudulent votes in Philadelphia. New York City, Boston, Providence, Baltimore, Washington, DC, Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago will all deliver large numbers of fraudulent votes to the Democrat Socialist Party also. Voter fraud can only operate on a massive scale where one political party has long held power over an area with a large population for a long period of time. A nationwide plurality contest will make it much harder to triage the many cases of voter fraud for investigation. With the Electoral College, one can focus voter fraud investigations on those areas where the vote will actually change the outcome of the state-wide election and the way its Electoral College votes are cast.
- The Democrat Socialist Party presidential candidate will spend even less time in rural areas of the country and in towns and small cities than they already do. It is a great advantage to have the richest lode of one's voters crowded together in a few large cities. Limited time and money can be far more effectively focused on these high density ant-nests of humanity than is possible for a candidate who seeks the votes of Americans living in lower population density areas of the nation. Post-election maps will show even more of the nation in red even as a few dots of blue carry the Presidential election. Future Presidents will be less and less able to claim that they are the President of all the People. It will become ever easier for them to disregard those who live in fly-over country and to designate them the Deplorables.
- Legitimate government is government that protects the exercise of every citizen's individual rights. Unfettered democracy is actually pressed to trample the rights of many citizen's in order to purchase the votes of a plurality of citizens. In many cases, the interests of people living in cities and high density areas are different than those who live in lower density areas. The city-dweller may be very happy to have all the products he needs that require natural resources as inputs to come from China, Africa, and South America. He may be more ready to buy into environmental scare tactics than some who live in a mining area. The city-dweller might be susceptible to using the government to drive down food prices at the expense of farmers and those who process and transport food materials. The city-dweller likely has no interest in the fate of fishermen. He is likely to want federal tax deductions for heavy state and local taxes at the expense of more rural people with less expensive governments. The city-dweller will push for expensive subsidies for public transportation at the expense of people from lower density population areas. City-dwellers and the Democrat Socialist Party are already very often seeking to force employers to pay high minimum wages such as the commonly demanded $15/hour wage. Even in cities a minimum wage requirement does great harm to those who are little educated, have low work skills, or are little motivated to work. But minimum wage requirements on the national level are even more devastating in rural areas where businesses have fewer potential customers and where the cost of living is commonly much lower. Our Republic, under which the Electoral College is a key leg, was designed to discourage a portion of the disregard that an unfettered democracy has for individuals and minorities of the electorate.
- That party most eager to have a federal government which provides goodies to its voters while showing a great willingness to harm those who do not vote or who vote for another party will benefit most from keeping the Electoral College from doing the task it was set up to do by the Framers of the Constitution. The Framers knew the dangers of democracy. They knew that governments are biased in favor of increasing their power over the People. They put many checks and balances into our system of federal governance in order to provide for our welfare by minimizing the dangers to individuals and minorities that democracies are inclined toward and by making it harder for governments to increase their power and control over the lives of the People. When the state legislatures were no longer allowed to designate the electors to the Electoral College, the federal system was undermined. The power of the states was diminished. This made it easier for a party to ignore many states as it sought power at the federal government level.
- A constitutional amendment is required to eliminate the Electoral College. Such amendments are hard to pass. An amendment ultimately requires the approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures. This is pretty much an impossible task for the Democrat Socialist Party to achieve, since so many of the states are clearly to be ignored by them once they have eliminated the Electoral College. The idea that everyone's vote should count in a Presidential election has a lot of naive appeal to many Americans, so the compact between the states that each state will cast its electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote across America has some appeal. It requires the approval of many fewer state legislatures than does an amendment to the Constitution. Many of the states to be ignored by the future government can also be ignored in the process of putting this compact into play. I do wonder if once the People of a state have voted for candidate A, but candidate B wins the national popular vote, how stable the compact of legislatures will be when the People of that state find their own legislature betraying their state-wide vote. For instance, imagine that Trump had won the popular vote. Can you imagine the uproar in New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and California when their electoral votes were cast for Trump?
- The entire plurality that Hillary Clinton won over Donald Trump was based on the vote in California, where Republicans are largely disenfranchised by a state election system that places Democrat Socialists running against Democrat Socialists for virtually every state-wide office in the general election and few if any Republicans are on the ballot. This Democrat Socialist voting system is a strong voter suppression factor. The interstate compact to award each state's electoral votes to the popular vote winner will encourage more states solidly controlled by a party to adopt this form of voter suppression. All evidence to this point is that Democrats are more willing to suppress the vote of Republicans than Republicans are eager to suppress the Democrat vote.
Rather than more unfettered democracy, we need more institutions and laws that protect individuals and minorities of all kinds -- not just racial, gender, or sexuality -- from the brutal use of force and the harms that a plurality of voters and their chosen power-hungry politicians are all too often eager to inflict upon them.