you've been pretty vocal about how you viewed the court as one that doesn't strictly apply the constitution as it's written and is more of an activist court. You've used a different term than 'activist' but I can't recall it off the top of my head but it covers the gist of your prior posts regarding how the court had been ruling.
You've been pretty vocal prior to the Trump administration about your dissatisfaction of how it was leaning.
You realize we’ve had a conservative leaning court for decades? Scalia (a conservative) was replaced by Gorsuch (a conservative) and Kennedy (mostly a conservative) was replaced by Kavanaugh (a conservative).
As for the Electoral College, I think Federalism is a good thing. Voters in California have different issues than those in Montana.
I'm not following your point of different states having different issues. of course they would. my thinking is that 40 million people with a national issue in California probably should carry more weight than 1 million people having an issue in Montana. I don't have an issue with that. I don't see why the Reps in California should have their national votes dismissed because they're outnumbered in their state. Same for Dems in Texas. I just don't think that's right and it's caused by the Electoral College.
Our system is based upon preserving the individual autonomy of the States. Ending the EC would make small states completely irrelevant.
As opposed to giving them excessive representation? I'm fine with 1 person-1 vote. I could accept a compromise where the EC is based on each state's count of representatives in the HOR --> doing away with the counting of senators towards electoral votes.
As someone born and raised in RI, I'm used to residents in small states being considered irrelevant but it doesn't change the belief each person's vote should count the same. EC doesn't do that.
-->looking at the latest census for the states, it's looking like RI is going to lose it's second HOR rep to Montana which has passed it in population (and Montana currently has just 1 HOR rep)
there's a balance between state's autonomy and federal governance. having a senate and HOR to present the 2 types of representation (equal per state and base on population) addresses state representation. The presidency should be based on voter count so each person counts the same.
here's an example of the imbalance of the EC using the most populous and least populous states:
California has a 2018 population of 39,557,045. It has 55 electoral votes. an average of .00000139 votes per person per electoral vote.
Wyoming has a 2018 population of 577,737. it has 3 electoral votes. an average of .00000519 votes per per per electoral vote.
that gives Wyoming voters 3.7 times more voice/power in the presidential voting. that's just not right.
even taking my possible compromise into account, that's 53 votes which averages .00000134 for California and Montana has 1 vote which averages .00000173. It still work out in Montana's favor per person but it's a heck of a lot closer to a 1 person-1 vote equality.