With a straight popular vote, all we would get is somebody promising New Yorkers and Californians and rust belters that the rest of the country will be taxed, enslaved, whatever to serve their needs. The populous states then go 95% or so for such programs and the states that go the other way by the same margin don't get beat and rolled.
By the article's logic, the Senate should be done away with, as well, since small states are over represented there.
BTW, who said that "unfiltered democracy" is NOT akin to mob rule?
The president is the president of the COUNTRY, not of 50.0001% of the people. As such he must show that he has support in more than one region.
The mag's stand still allows for the possibility of someone winning the popular vote with well under 50%, and hence still isn't truly the choice of the whole people. (Lincoln got under 40% in a four way race ... war breaks out among the states!)
By the way, I live in one of those big states (Illinois), and I know that Kerry will likely carry it. I will still vote for the other offices, and can vote Constitution Party for Prez knowing it won't help Kerry. Keep the Electoral College! We need the Montanans, Utahites, and Alabamans to save the Californias, New Yorks and Illinoises from themselves.
One county is the same as any other at that point. Federal judges are mandating to states what the laws must be.
The United STATES is not long for this world.
You forgot to mention the "Oklahomans," so I will. :-)