The fact FDR couldn't do it with his popularity (despite him just adding air got a bubble that would burst in hindsight) is telling.A super-majority Dem Congress and Dem President will increase SCOTUS to fifteen members.
FDR tried it with a strong dem Congress but failed.
A popular vote system is more unfair.Right, and that’s disgraceful and unfair.
The current EC requires you to move around the country and address many peoples needs who have different circumstances and live in different conditions.
A popular vote could end up like Mondale packing California with 32 million votes and only campaigning in california. Would it be fair if Mondales opponent in this scenario, went to around 45-47 states working hard, gaining all the popular vote EC wins (that's how the EC is won in most states, by popular vote) the map looks like a land slide, but only has 31 million votes.
Should we give the win to Mondale who stuffed and only campaigned in one state because he got one million more votes and left the rest of the country to rot?
People really only have issues with this due to recent events, but if you look at comments by people 200 years ago on the EC, you'll see that it was designed to prevent those from stuffing states and requiring some effort into getting votes.
Recent elections aren't the only examples, there are numerous landslide elections where if the EC wasn't in place the loser could have come close or actually one if we were in a winner take all system, which would mean they could stuff more votes out of a single state.
The only real complaint I see that actually has some bases of a realistic argument is that some states with low populations get like 3-4 EC points, but then the issue becomes moot.
If you look at the last 10 elections some of these states that people say have "too much power" are states that within those last 10 elections, were considered throwaways. Some of the losers in the last 10 elections could have won if they actually campaigned in these throwaway states.
If anything I see any thing about certain states like Montana having "too much power" nothing more than an excuse for a losing strategy. You'd be surprised at how many EC maps you can look at for the last several decades and see that a person could have won if they got 2-5 throwaway states which are actually more up for grabs than you think since the other side thinks they are 100% safe and won't bother there either.