>This is simply counter-exampled with the proportional representation of the US House. If states were equal then population would play no part in representation.

This is a compromise because not all States have the same population (obviously). The Senate, where all States have equal representation, decides matters which are considered de facto of higher importance such as government appointments and diplomatic matters, among many others. All bills must also pass both the House and the Senate, meaning a bill must pass the test of equal representation voting; larger States cannot simply force their way through, especially if smaller States come together.

>Again untrue. This doesn't reflect reality. People don't behave like that or believe that. Most people are in fact in favor of abolishing the electoral college[1].

Abolishing the Electoral College (which in my humble opinion is rooted in ignorance and party politics more than anything) has nothing to do with the fact that the President of the United States represents the States and is elected by the States. The Governors are who represent the peoples of the respective States in the Executive branch of government.

Congress will act as a failsafe in the event the Electoral College deadlocks, and in such an event the House will vote for President-elect along State lines with the Representatives of each State voting in unison with fellow State Congressmen as a bloc, just like the Electoral College, with each State bloc getting 1 vote. The Senate will likewise vote per-Senator on who will become Vice President-elect.

It is very clear that the intent is the Presidency (and Vice Presidency) will be decided by the States, with or without the Electoral College by an equal representation vote. The Presidency is voted in at the pleasure of the States, derived from the pleasure of the people of each State respectively.

>I'm not asking that. We're discussing Federal elections and representation.

The President of the United States does not represent the people, at least not directly. In that context, you are in fact asking that because you, by citing and supporting the Compact, are arguing the President of the United States should represent the people directly rather than the United States.

>This literally describes how Electoral College operates. It's a well known point of discussion when critiquing the electoral college. Surely, you must be familiar with that line of reasoning.

The Electoral College (or Congress in the event of failsafe) votes, either officially or de facto, according to the will of the people of the respective States that the Electors (or Congressmen) hail from. The Electoral College (or Congress) quite literally represents the direct will of the people in each State.

The Compact instead proposes to not represent the direct will of the people in each State, instead deferring to whatever is the majority vote of the nation as a whole.

The very nature of the Compact means that if the nationwide majority votes for Bob, then any States that voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave effectively have their votes uncounted; this is because the Electors of States whose people voted for Alex or Charlie or Dave will instead vote for Bob in absolute defiance of that State's peoples' votes for the others.

The Compact effectively legalizes unfaithful Electors answering to the will of States they do not represent.

This is an attack on the sovereignties and democracies of the States and their peoples thereof and should never be accepted, let alone tolerated.

>This confuses a personal subjective experience with the objective truth of reality. You've extrapolated a genuine question and comment into a malevolent and sinister plot. I truly urge you to find the best in people.

>Questioning people's character and motives distracts from productive discussion.

Explain yourself how the Compact would improve democracy, then. What the Compact proposes is the exact opposite: What part of deliberately defying the will of the people is supportive of democracy?