Abolishment of the Electoral College

"Every schoolchild can explain that the house of representatives was supposed to represent the people, and the Senate the states"

In the Constitution, it says in Article 1 Section 2 that: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative". I wonder how much different the US government would be if this were actually held to, Senators chosen as you stated by the states, and House members chosen by just 30,000 voters. It seems the members of the House would be far more accountable to the people, while the Senate would act as a check on this chaotic house.

"The founders were likewise opposed to what they termed "the spirit of party." Not only does loyalty to a party put the interests of good government at risk, the consensus required to make sure a good candidate was elected was already provided for in the constitution. First, as already explained, the electors would be wise men who would choose the best candidate, not just the ones with the most donations or latest headline to sway an uninformed and easily swayed populace"

If you assume that about 60% of the population are registered voters (probably a bit much), that would be about 180,000,000 voters. Divided by 30,000, this would be 6000 members of the House. This sounds crazy at first, but think about it....Wouldn't Berkeley be likely to vote in some psycho green? Might Dearborn Michigan vote in a militant Muslim? Might Hayden Lake Idaho vote in a white supremacist? Maybe, but none of these would have too much power. The diversity of America would be reflected, and also muted by a truly representative House. As it is now, each of the 435 members of the House, based ont he assumption of 180,000,000 voters represents about 414,000 voters. This seems to me to be a real problem. The House now is a mini version of the Senate. Wasn't the purpose of the House, to reflect the will of the people and hold the government accountable to the people? When held in check from excesses by a 100 member Senate of well qualified leaders, it seems that this would help return the Government to the founders vision.

As the government gets larger and farther removed from the people at a local level, it does indeed get more "crazy." I for one would like to see something like that take place. The senate acting as a check would make it much more accountable to local control if senators were still chosen the way intended...

The only problem is that I think the current reading of the constitution stipulates that you need AT LEAST 30,000 people per representative, not 1 representative per 30,000 people.

Did you even read my post?

I didn't advocate abolishing the electoral college, so I really don't understand your points. I have the feeling you just read the title and had an emotional reaction.

specifically,

The electoral college is "carved in stone," assuming we follow the constitution...

Secondly, splitting the electoral college vote to reflect the popular vote would just be another step in the wrong direction.