[edmcnulty101]

The framers of the constitution did not intend for presidential election by popular vote.

The intention was for state legislatures to nominate electors who would then vote for president.

It wasn't until mid 1800's that states started elections (of electors) by popular vote. Note: still through an elector proxy.

Also this is not a government run by popular vote, it is a mixture of state and population based government and also representation democracy not direct democracy.

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.

The fact that people feel that states shouldn't have equal say and equal power is to me a huge breakdown of society.

Having California run the entire country would be a nightmare.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

California could not win any popular vote about any matter whatsoever on its own.

The only thing that wins popular votes is ... having a majority of voters voting for it. Doesn't sound so bad does it? At least until you start to introduce the petty tribalism of "I don't want those folks who ain't from round here telling us what we can and can't do".

The real question is: there are obviously different "ideal sized bodies" for a popular vote controlled democracy, depending on the issue at hand. It probably is right that "folks from round here" get to decide a bunch of issues, without having to convince the whole country. And there are issues where you really should only be able to move forward with a popular vote across the whole country. So the question is: what's the right scale/scope of the voting entities for different kinds of issues?

I don't know the right answer, but I'm fairly sure that the states we have right now are not the correct choice for a lot of issues.

[edmcnulty101]

Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

tyranny of the masses is equally as bad as tyranny of the one especially considering how tribalistic people are.

That's why the framers of the Constitution decided against what you're proposing.

as to the right size question. there is no right size. it's totally arbitrary. States are what we have and that's fine.