Should we abolish the popular vote?

[minionofmidas]

You can|t abolish the national popular vote because it does not exist.

[minionofmidas]

The benefit of the electoral college is that the president-elect must seek out widespread support, and not just stack up large majorities in certain geographical segments of the country.

Quite on the contrary. He may seek support in only certain geographical segments that make up just over half of the country and can let the rest of the country do exactly as it pleases. View 1860.

[minionofmidas]

The benefit of the electoral college is that the president-elect must seek out widespread support, and not just stack up large majorities in certain geographical segments of the country.

But what makes Mike Smith's vote more important if he lives in York, Pennsylvania, than if he lives in Queens?

The same argument could be used to declare the Senate an archaic institution, yet it remains, as it represents a principle that is a cornerstone of the federal system.

Well it's both. Both archaic and a cornerstone of the (archaic) federal system. It's also got the great advantage of being ungerrymanderable by state legislatures.

[minionofmidas]

Right...the Districts would have no geographical lines.  They would just be numbered 1-100, and presumably they would acquire their own de-facto "boundaries", geographic or otherwise.

No, I don't think so. Each district would merely be a subset of the U.S. with approximately the same socioeconomic and demographic breakdown as the whole nation.

Why would that be? 

Let's say that today, your plan is adopted, and the Senate as we know it is abolished. These 100 "districts" are created. Now, the probability of a voter choosing a particular district is 1/100. Voters will arbitrarily choose districts, and the net effect will be to create districts which are by and large subsets of the nation.

You assume that voters will, on their own, organize into districts based on their interests. Given that only about 30% of the voters actually cast ballots in midterm elections, I don't think that this assumption is valid. A vast majority of the voters would arbitrarily choose some district; they would not be sufficiently interested to research each district, checking if that body matches a particular interest.

Some of the districts would have tiny populations at the beginning, making them easy to take over for small organized groups.

[minionofmidas]

In parliamentary systems in some foreign nations, one party won a majority of the seats even though it received fewer "popular votes."

Does anyone know of a movement in a nation with a parliamentary system to change their system?

I have trouble understanding what you mean. Do you mean a party won the election despite having less votes than the opposition party (aka, Quebec 1998)?

Yes.

The answer to the question is, of course: "that's why more countries switch from fptp to pr than the other way round".