I do hope that the experience of this election will build bipartisan support to nationalize federal elections. Personally, I'd love to see an end to the electoral college, but I can't see Republicans supporting that loss of leverage since their last two non-incumbent wins have lost the popular vote.

I think it would be a very bad idea to nationalize federal elections. Right now, each state chooses how they run their elections. Some states (like Maine) have chosen to use ranked choice voting while others use first past the post.

Nationalizing elections would basically cement first past the post as our permanent voting system forever since it's extremely unlikely you could convince everyone in the U.S. to change to a new one at once.

> We're operating on a model that our own State Department discourages other countries from adopting.

Do you have a source for that?

Especially the point about bicameralism? I think in a federal system, having something like the US or Australian Senate's is useful in it prevents the smaller states from being dominated by the bigger ones. Leaving smaller states feeling politically powerless can encourage separatist/independence movements and threaten the long-term viability of the country.

Sure do. Amanda Taub, for the NYT.

https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oa...

Edit: here's a reprint in case that first link (from an NYT email newsletter) doesn't work:

http://www.barcelonaradical.net/info/12380/the-democracy-ref...

Leaving smaller states feeling politically powerless can encourage separatist/independence movements and threaten the long-term viability of the country.

Do you have a source for that? Proportional representation does seem to solve for it. See also: far right parties gaining seats in Germany.

Their views get heard (if not enacted), no one secedes, and the system remains stable.

There is no incompatibility between having proportional representation and having bicameralism. Federally, Australia has preferential voting (instant-runoff voting) in the House of Representatives and single transferrable vote is used to elect 12 senators for each state (only 6 in a normal election, the full 12 only get re-elected in a special "double dissolution" election, which the government is allowed to order to break a deadlock between the two houses). You mention Germany, which is a bicameral system as well (the Bundesrat).

For the benefits of federal bicameralism, consider the UK – England has almost 85% of the population, and so in a purely one-person-one-vote system will always outvote the other three constituent countries. The UK does have bicameralism, but non-federal – the House of Lords does not directly represent the constituent countries, and does not provide a mechanism to block an English majority – the majority of the House of Lords is English too. And I think this is one of the major factors driving the Scottish independence movement. If the UK had a system more like Australia – with an upper house providing equal representation to each part of the country, regardless of population, and with constitutional referendums requiring a double majority to pass (both a majority of the national population, and also a majority of the population in a majority of the states) – then I don't think the Scottish independence movement would have anywhere near as much steam as it has.