I'll just repost a thing about the Electoral College I already wrote up elsewhere.
[hide]The Electoral College was founded to appease slave owners. That's the entire reason. Famously there was a rule about slaves being worth 3/5 a man
History and apologists try to make some points about it also about not letting the minority being overwhelmed, or that the populace was uneducated then and it would take weeks for mail to be delivered and give tallies so there needed to be a concise way to do it. Those things ARE true, and maybe you were taught that in school, I was. But it was mostly about appeasing slavery states and avoiding a succession and civil war. (And that didn't work out in the end.)
It was also founded before there were 50 differently sized states with wildly different populations, and before California and Texas existed as massive population centers, due mostly to their land mass. If was before women and dark skinned people could vote.
States already get their guaranteed representation in the Senate with 2 votes per state no matter what the population, (which is overwhelmingly biased towards the low population farming states), and the House hasn't been adjusted to match population in 100 years so small states are over-represented there too.
We've also taken our sweet time making Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands into real states so they get no representation at all.
There is no reason for all three branches to consistently give MORE power to the minority than the majority. Prevent the minority from being crushed by the tyranny of the majority? Absolutely. But the tyranny of the minority is also an issue.
If every vote counted equally, there would be no red or blue states. People like to say "but then California and New York would decide every election!" but there isn't nearly enough population there for that to be the case. Also, currently, those states are so blue, that it means the millions of red votes in them are just lost. California had 4.5 million Trump votes in 2016! And the other away around as well. In 2016 Texas had 4 million votes for Clinton, and not one of them meant anything… despite those numbers being greater than entire the population of 20 other states and worth about 15 points were those votes anywhere else.
Under popular vote, there wouldn't be red or blue states, pretty much every state would be unified but diverse purple. People who just don't bother voting because their vote doesn't matter in their state, might. It would also make candidates need to spend time on EVERY state, not just battlegrounds. You'd have republicans in California and New York and Dems in Nebraska and the Dakotas.
The Electoral College is a system where someone could theoretically win with only 22% of the vote. Some votes count 5x as much as others. And it was never intended for a two party system.
Regardless of the outcome today, its a system that needs to go. Everyone would benefit from popular vote being the decider for elections, rather than an entire election coming down to 538 votes in Florida..
Unless of course you are a party that can't ever win a popular vote.[/hide]