Canuck_2, I think you are in the wrong country. The U.S. Electoral College has existed essentially since the founding of the country. Every president has known of and worked within the framework of the electoral process.
The U.S. is not Canada or some other parliamentary country where the House of Commons picks the premier. We're different. Anyone wanting to run for president here needs to optimize his/her strategy with the electoral college in mind.
Those who worry that the POTUS is not elected by direct popular vote might consider the regional politics of come countries, where states or provinces representatives are chosen by the party in power and not by the people. Where these politicians, who are supposed to represent regional interests and who are the "sober second thought" are appointed, not elected.
I understand some Canadian Western Provinces people feel their regional interests are not adequately represented in the Canadian balance of power. Contrarily, New York and California people may feel they'd like to ignore Southern and Mid-Western interests in the U.S.
The POTUS was not elected by popular vote. That is and has been the fact. There are ways to change that.
In the meantime, focusing on a fact that is not germane may not be the best way to affect present reality.
It might be called beating a dead horse.
It might be said that it is a losers argument - one that focuses on something non-essential so it can avoid dealing with something that matters.
OK, Canuck_2, you win. POTUS is not and never has been selected by direct election. I predict that in the foreseeable future, that will continue to be the case. It will only matter to those who failed to understand and address the electoral college. It's a loser's argument.
Now, how about the Western Provinces disaffection with the Canadian Senate?
