Majoritarianism vs. the U.S. Constitutional System
We Romney voters might find ourselves on the winning side of the national popular vote and yet lose the electoral college, whereby President Obama would be re-elected.
If that happens, I imagine a lot of Republicans who favored keeping the Electoral College after the 2000 election would change their minds. Some would change for partisan expediency, while others would argue that once a century is tolerable, but twice in four elections is too frequent. And many Democrats who hated the Electoral College in 2000 (even more than they hated the Supreme Court) would happily rub our noses in it.
Many pro-Electoral College arguments are based on other (small-r) republican principles, like ensuring small states are valued by presidential candidates. On the other hand, support for pure majority rule is the simplest argument for eliminating the electoral college--"One man, one vote."
Of course, "one man, one vote" was never a principle the Founders believed in, at least not in the way we "moderns" conceive it. This is obvious by the establishment of the Electoral College, as well as the allocation of two senators per state (selected by the state governments in the original design).
That raises a question, one which I have never heard anyone ask: Is it possible to favor the elimination of the Electoral College without also favoring the abolishment the United States Senate?
Is such a position logically consistent? And if it's not, does the prospect of abolishing the Senate give anyone who would do away with the Electoral College pause?