This is an assertion, not a fact. There are plenty of ways in which systems which are not popular persist long after a majority, not to mention an overwhelming majority, support them. In fact one of the major intents and effects of propaganda, which is being used extensively today in the US, is to raise the level of apathy in a population.
Meanwhile, I can point to lots of popular support for other things, despite any "propaganda". Propaganda and apathy don't seem to have stopped various activists from pushing for marijuana reform, gay rights/marriage, gun law changes (in different directions), etc. Can you point me to ANY significant activist activity to change the voting laws? Any? Any at all? Can you point to any national-level candidate (or even state-level) who's made any noise about this issue?
(And before you try to claim that "propaganda" limits the choices and viability of candidates, I'll disprove that with one name: "Trump".)
No, this is misinformation. The purpose of propaganda and disinformation is to reduce a population's ability to discern the truth. To wear down cognitive abilities until people stop trying. You can't use apathy or lack of initiative as a "fact" supporting your pet conclusion.
As for your assertion that there is "no", "none at all" support for any such change it just happens that it's a well studied question.
You should acquaint yourself with the facts that studies have obtained. For instance, Gallup[1] tracks opinion in surveys.
In the recent past as much as 62% of the population supported a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College. After the more recent election year, 2016, it is closer - 47% vs 49%, still in favor of change.
In short, your argument is just baseless noise - just like a lot of what's being emitted by disinformationists in our current environment.
[1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-elector...
There is a simple way to ensure that the popular vote winner becomes President, so one explanation for why there are no marches advocating "a new electoral system" is that the enlightened realize there is no need to change the Constitution.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
Eh? No they don't. See http://news.gallup.com/poll/2305/americans-long-questioned-e...
For the last 50 years it has been divided with a majority favouring reform. It's just not something that most people care about _much_ (except in the immediate aftermath of an election where it has a grossly obvious effect), so it never attains the sense of urgency and permanency that might actually lead to a constitutional change.
Have you seen any groundswell of movement to try to change any of the election laws? Of course not. We've seen people pushing for new gun laws (in the wakes of shootings), we've seen people pushing for marijuana legalization or decriminalization or rescheduling, we've seen people pushing for gay marriage (and winning), we've seen people pushing for higher minimum wage laws, but we have NOT seen any real push for electoral reform.
Our gun laws have seen various changes (at all levels) over the decades, MJ was only banned in the 1930s IIRC, gay marriage only became an issue in the last couple decades, yet we've had these same election laws since the founding of the nation. If we really cared about changing them, we have done so by now. I, for one, certainly haven't seen any desire to change the Electoral College system on the right, since they benefit from it; instead, they steadfastly defend the system.
So yes, a majority of Americans do support this election system.
> Have you seen any groundswell of movement to try to change any of the election laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
I don't think that opposing a correction to the system should even count as an opinion, because the present system was not designed; it evolved, so any appeal to a worthwhile purpose is post-hoc reasoning.
I attribute the support for the current system entirely to people who must validate their feelings that the ends of getting Bush & Trump elected justified the means. This means it is plausible that it is in nobody's interest, when we look to the future.
Huh? Where'd you get this from? The Electoral College did not evolve, it was specifically designed by the Framers as a compromise between the rural and urban states.
>I attribute the support for the current system entirely to people who must validate their feelings that the ends of getting Bush & Trump elected justified the means. This means it is plausible that it is in nobody's interest, when we look to the future.
You're provably wrong here: The system was specifically designed the way it was to give more power to the rural (lower population density) states. That's exactly what it's done in elections where the popular vote winner lost. The people who support it continue to support it for that same reason: it's giving them the result they want, which is disproportionate power to rural states and rural voters like them.
It's absolutely in their interest to support that: they have different values than urban voters, and they want to win elections. The EC system helps them achieve this by tipping the scale in their favor, so of course they want it to remain unaltered.
Your assertion is that it's in "nobody's interest" is plainly wrong. You only think that because you're biased in favor of your own interests, which align with urban voters (like me), and you think that your interests should be all voters' interests, or that they're correct. Rural voters don't agree with you, and they think they should have more voting power per person than urban voters, so of course the current system is in their interest, even if it is inherently unfair.