See my reply above as to what my comment is about. In short: criticizing Republicans for being political in their reasons when Democrats are being equally political in their reasons is pot and kettle time.
Ah, now this is kinda the nub to the whole thing. “Expanding and strengthening democracy”: explain how exactly what the NPVIC does is “expanding and strengthening democracy”? On the contrary, it does quite the opposite: it ignores the preferences of the people in the states in question, as expressed in their votes, in favor of the votes of people in other places in the country. That’s not “expanding and strengthening democracy”; that’s simply changing the nature of the country from a federal system of government to a national system that ignores the states when it comes to choosing the President.
I’ve asserted in the past (in this thread indeed, I believe) that, in order to establish that this is a change that should be adopted, those in favor (like you) should establish exactly why it’s necessary to make such a change. So far, I have only seen that people who are in favor of it are in favor of it because the current system somehow offends their sensibilities. Ignoring for a moment the fact that I suspect that, for many, their sensibilities are motivated by their political losses, rather than actual principles, the simple fact that someone (say you) prefers the idea of a national “democracy”, as opposed to a federal democracy isn’t a reason to make a change. If we were all sitting down around a table trying to decide what to do to set up the country ab initio, you could make your arguments for what you want. But, of course, you’d probably find that your demands would be rejected just as they were back in 1787 in Philadelphia, and for much the same reasons. And then you’d have to decide if you should just take your marbles and go home and not play with those who won’t accept your vision, or if you should cut a deal and try to get at least some of what you want (you know, like actually happened).
I’m not unutterably opposed to revamping (or eliminating) the Electoral College. But I believe it should be done only after demonstrating how it is failing to accomplish the goals we hold important in the selection of a President. I can tell you for a fact that you simply won’t be able to convince large swathes of the country to accept your idea of a popularly elected President. I live in South Carolina. I know the people here pretty well by now. And I can tell you without fear of contradiction that, if it ever comes to the point that the people of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York get to choose who the President over South Carolina is, the compact that is the United States will most likely unravel post haste.
It is “accepted” because, you know, it’s what we’ve been doing for over 200 years. The fact that a minority of people want a change doesn’t make it any less the “accepted” practice.