I think something like this is necessary but not sufficient. All it does it invalidate the Electoral College, but it doesn't solve other problems - spoiler effe

I think something like this is necessary but not sufficient. All it does it invalidate the Electoral College, but it doesn't solve other problems - spoiler effects still exist, close elections will be even harder to deal with since nationwide recounts are harder than statewide recounts, etc. I think a lot of people get sucked in to thinking about voting methods when it is actually a distraction when you consider that we don't have a consensus of how to even define democracy. For instance, ask yourself these two questions: 1) If, in a multi-candidate election, one candidate would defeat all others head-to-head, should that candidate be the winner? (I personally say yes, but many say "not necessarily") 2) If, in a two-candidate election, candidate A wins 51-49, but the supporters of candidate B are significantly more passionate than candidate A, should B win? (I personally say no, but many say yes - usually implicit in arguments for more "utility" or "overall voter happiness") Because of my beliefs, I would be in favor of something like the National Popular Vote compact, but with a Condorcet element - where each state's EVs are awarded to the national Condorcet winner if it exists. States would transition to ranked ballots on their own timetable, and the national vote would take ranked ballots into account as reported. (An unranked ballot is Condorcet-compatible as it expressed a preference for one candidate above all others, with no preference between the others.) If Smith/Schwartz sets happen, the election goes to the House as it does now.