> It's a republic, not a democracy, I know what you're trying to say, but please don't contribute to the spread of that toxic meme. https://mises.org/wire/sto

> It's a republic, not a democracy, I know what you're trying to say, but please don't contribute to the spread of that toxic meme. https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democracy https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democra... https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s-republic-or-democracy-why-some-conservatives-pick-a-side https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s... https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-burmila https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democrac... > The Electoral College is part of that, but it shows up in several other places (like the existence of Congress itself). I'm not an expert, but I would say that the existence of the Electoral College mostly reflects the practicalities of trying to run multiple simultaneous elections within semi-sovereign states that have their own voting rules. The existence of the Senate (especially before the Seventeenth Amendment) is a much better argument for the founders' resistance to direct democracy. > It's a more fundamental change than many people realize, and takes a much more nuanced evaluation than just "democracy good". You're absolutely right, and I too have my concerns about reforms like the NPVIC (in particular how it clashes with states' efforts to adopt RCV). My personal preference would be for a more modest reform like the bipartisan Lodge-Gossett Amendment proposed in 1950. By keeping each state's apportionment of electoral votes unchanged, it introduces fewer moving parts, while still encouraging more citizens to vote.