April 8, 1913. prior to that, US Senators were selected by the state legislatures to ensure that the states had equal representation in the federal government. The 17th Amendment moved that to popular vote of the people, removing any state interests.
Oh that.
Uh, yes, I'm aware of that, and I wouldn't characterize it as "removing the first part of state representation."
I'd call it a move toward democracy, by allowing the citizens of states to choose who represents them in the Senate.
It's completely nonsensical to characterize popular vote as being "against the state interest", which is what you're implying here. States aren't disembodied masses. They are, quite literally, people living within borders.
Those are the three co-equal branches of the government and not the three branches of representation. Before the 17th Amendment, the house represented the people, the Senate represented the states, and the president represented the entire country.
The Senate didn't stop representing the state simply because the people in those states got to directly vote for their senators. What a totally nonsensical conclusion.
Back to the EC: It was a compromise with slaveholding states -- in concert with the 3/5ths clause -- to ensure that slaves counted toward presidential electors, even if slaves themselves couldn't vote. That's why 7 of the first 12 presidents were from Virginia, the largest state in the union (and also not coincidentally a slaveholding state).
Slaves no longer exist, and our body politic is 99% literate, so the EC's entire purpose for being has been destroyed. The ec should therefore be destroyed. It's anti-democratic, and completely contradicts your claim that the executive "represents the country".
If the country, quite loudly, expresses disapproval with a president (like they did with Bush in 2000, and Trump in 16 and 20), then that executive doesn't represent the nation. It represents a minority political faction (something the framers hated).
