Abolish The Popular Vote?

Yep. A writer over at Reason magazine suggests we needn't abolish the Electoral College but rather abolish the popular vote in presidential elections. Instead, voters would either elect Electors or select Electors through some sort of lottery system. I'm not sure but I might prefer the former as I  don't trust Democrats to not try and manipulate a lottery system to their advantage.

I think he makes a good case:

" Yes, get rid of the popular vote. For all the money, time, and attention paid to the presidential race, the actual votes cast on Election Day are basically meaningless. In non-swing states, votes are literally meaningless. Even in states where a small number of votes could change the outcome of the election, your vote and mine are still so insignificant as to be practically worthless, as Reason editor in chief Katherine Mangu-Ward explained in detail in 2012."

 "Undemocratic!" you might be tempted to cry out.
Well, yes, but not really much less democratic than the system we currently use and, arguably, more democratic than the original design of the Electoral College, in which Electors were not bound in any way to the results of the popular vote in their states. The Founders envisioned a system in which well-read elites would be responsible for choosing the president, in theory as a check against the masses. With a lottery-based system, we'd be returning to that original idea, but with a populist twist."

  Hey, I enjoy voting perhaps more than most, but wouldn't it be nice to have all eyes on down ticket races rather than two presidential candidates? Such a system might have made this last election a bit more tolerable for all. I'm sure many will be concerned such a system wouldn't be "democratic" but, as I've written before, democracy be damned.