[Clubber]

>The entire State of California is constantly riddled with ballot propositions

Ya, I was thinking federally only. California is its own animal and they do put a lot of things to vote, so you certainly are right with this example.

>Federally, I can't go a week without reading about yet another proposal to eliminate the Electoral College and use a popular vote for President.

That's just people complaining when their candidate doesn't win. If their candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, they wouldn't let out a peep about it I'll bet. Democrats won't actually remove the electoral college because they use superdelegates to ensure the party can put its thumb on any candidate's scale (see Bernie v Clinton and Bernie v Biden).

>So if you're not seeing any evidence of it, where are you looking?

I'm talking about actual politicians proposing actual legislation and recruiting votes in the senate/house, not just lip service from the stump. They don't do it because it doesn't actually benefit them.

[yucky]

That's not true either though. I can't even count how many Democrats have publicly supported the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and most blue states have officially passes legislation signing on to it. https://ballotpedia.org/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Com...

[Clubber]

Wow. Thanks for enlightening me. I hope this happens, I don't care for the use of superdelegates to the benefit of the party over the people's will.

[jmfayard]

It will happen the day after Kamala Harris (or another democrat) wins the presidential election despite loosing the popular vote.

Most GOP states will then instantly forget their principled support for the electoral college and join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to kill it.

We know this because in 2000 the George W. Bush team thought it was (contrary to what happened) likely to win the popular vote but loose in the electoral college, and had prepared a legal fight against this scenario.