“… only active, involved, progressive people who recognize that it is their actions which will preserve and enhance this country.”

Liberals are so bad at dynamic analysis. If the electorate consisted of such people, we wouldn’t need the sore-loser reforms Mr. Watkins recommends. (I’m glossing over the “progressive,” which is simply partisan nonsense.) Trump represents the tyranny of the majority. Not in the country, but in enough states to win in the E.C. But getting rid of the E.C. merely creates a different majority capable of tyranny. It’s result-oriented baloney, intellectual horseshit. Trump proves that the masses cannot be trusted, and Mr. Watkins argues that a national popular vote is the solution. He probably thinks Mark Zuckerberg should decide what’s true. Yikes.

Gerrymandering? I hate it, and have railed against it. I might even support Federal legislation restoring the requirement (which existed 100 years ago) for compact electoral districts. But, again, we wouldn’t need that legislation if we had smarter voters. In my home state of New Jersey, the Dems have the state levers, and they set about gerrymandering earlier this year. I wrote to my (Democrat) state reps and told them my vote next cycle depended on their opposing gerrymandering. I was not alone, and the plan was abandoned.

Informed, caring voters are a necessary and sufficient condition for democracy to work. But if we have that sort of electorate, the current rules would work just fine, because our reps would be better people behaving in better ways. Those who want to change the rules are like the kid who drops the fly ball and then looks reprovingly for a hole in his gloves. As if.