Should we abolish the popular vote?

[Emsworth]

The opposite should be done.

The Electoral College should, in my opinion, be retained. Like Congress, the Electoral College maintains the underlying principles of federalism, balancing the representation of the states on the basis of population, and the representation of the states as states.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

'Unequitable' is irrelevant. Notice our Constitution is established for all the people, not just the majority, and reserves most powers to the states.

Right you are. Otherwise, the notion of "rights" would be nonexistent.

[Emsworth]

There's no reason why you can't preserve all the individual rights we have no while giving everyone at least approximately equal voting power.

The way the Senate is structured now, it doesn't denfend the rights of minorities against majorities.  It only protects some specified minorities, whle hurting other minorities.  What state you are from is really much less relevant tou our lives today than many other traits.  If you really want to protect minorities, give two Senators to each racial group, or each religion, or each income bracket.

The assumption in a federal body like the Senate is that significant minorites will not be so geographically uniform that they are lost in every jurisdiction. That assumption generally tends to be true, but the threshold for "significance" is ambiguous. That ambigous threshold is a good thing IMO, since it provides far greater flexibility to changing times than the specific declaration of minority interest groups.

The problem with the Senate is that the founding fathers didn't creally ontemplate the idea that their might be interest groups that were totally undefined by geography.  For the most part, this is because these interests weren't even given voting rights at the time of the Constitution. 

One major "minority" that is completely geographically dispersed, for instance, is women.  People of all age groups are almost equally geographically dispersed.  And both rich and poor live in the same states and same cities, if not always in the same House district. 

If you want to really make sure the rights of minorities are represented, let them choose with "District" they want to be in....allow it to be completely free from geography.   Tell everyone they have to register to be in one of 100 "districts", but can choose which on they want.  Thus, people can identify with whatever interest they find most important. 

If enough people want to form an "Hispanic" district, or a "gay" district, or a "lawyer's" district, that's fine.  And if some people still value geography and want to form a "Maryland" district or a "Chicago" district, that's fine too.

There would be no incentive for individuals to register with their true "districts."

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

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.