Should the American Electoral College System be abolished?

[Forsher]

you guys have to remember that AL doesn't care about anything but gun rights. as far as I know, he could be living in a revived nazi germany and he wouldn't care if it meant no gun restrictions.

Well if there weren't gun restrictions, how would it be a revived Nazi Germany?

Okay. Zombie Hitler says you get one gun for every Jew you shoot.

You have a need for guns. They have a need for genocide. There is room to compromise, says Werner von Braun.

[San Lumen]

Well if there weren't gun restrictions, how would it be a revived Nazi Germany?

Okay. Zombie Hitler says you get one gun for every Jew you shoot.

You have a need for guns. They have a need for genocide. There is room to compromise, says Werner von Braun.

The topic of this thread is not guns.

[Forsher]

Okay. Zombie Hitler says you get one gun for every Jew you shoot.

You have a need for guns. They have a need for genocide. There is room to compromise, says Werner von Braun.

The topic of this thread is not guns.

Hey, you're right, this isn't the other thread.

[Galiantus III]

You'd be hard pressed to find an outcome worse than California and New York deciding.

All Getting rid of the electoral college does is make every vote count the same .

Actually, it does more than that...

One of the main arguments against the electoral college goes something like "voters in Wyoming have about 3.5 times more power selecting the president than voters in California". If the sincere goal is to make every vote count the same, you could do so without abolishing the electoral college - just change the apportionment rules of the electoral college to be proportional to state population. Then voters in the whole U.S. would have the same amount of power, within an electoral college system. Problem solved, right?

What supporters of the national popular vote ignore is that the selection of the president was never intended to be an individual-citizen-level issue. Instead, selection of a president was left up to the state legislatures. From Article I, Section II of the Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

According to this language, there are no limitations on what methods a state may use to appoint its electors (though there are limitations on who can be an elector). A state legislature could, for instance, assign a committee to appoint them. Or they could let the governor decide who to send. Or they could establish an essentially random method of selection; perhaps racing snails across a specific stretch of sidewalk near their chamber. From a constitutional perspective, such methods are completely legal, because the manner of appointment is ultimately up to the state legislature.

That being said, here in the United States, we like democracy. So it didn't take long for all the state legislatures to devolve the choice further, to their citizens. They didn't have to do that. But they did it anyway. Your vote for president isn't a federal-level issue, but a state one. If a state legislature decided to reclaim direct control over its electoral votes, and someone tried to raise the issue to SCOTUS, they would have to rule that your state legislature does indeed have the power to do so: your involvement in the process isn't a guarantee.

The electoral college being a state-level issue is also what gives the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact its legitimacy. If states were required to hold a democratic election to appoint electors, any agreement to send electors that lost democratically would be illegal. But as I have said already: it is up to the state legislature. So if the state legislature decides its electoral votes should be assigned based on the apparent will of the national population, it is their prerogative. However, I personally think such legislatures are shooting themselves in the foot: a rule that voids the preference of the majority within the state just means that majority will, at a minimum, demand a reversal of the rule. A particularly upset majority could punish the legislators responsible for such a rule. So despite being legitimate, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will struggle to live beyond its first election.

I should take a moment to point out that it was this understanding of the electoral college which made me, as a Trump supporter, accept Biden as the legitimate, constitutional president. You see, the contention of many other Trump supporters is the way states administered their elections. But constitutionally, the federal government has no say in how a state selects its electors. All that matters from the perspective of the federal government and the other states is that the state legislature certifies the results of the process as legitimate. So the electoral college is actually what sealed Biden's legitimacy as president against any criticism. Because of the rules of the electoral college, whatever nefarious thing I hear about the election results in another state is ultimately irrelevant. I have no say in how the another state legislature selects their electors - the state legislature is the referee.

However, if Biden had won under the national popular vote, I would have serious issue with it. Why? Because a true national popular vote system would remove the local control states have over the selection of a president. You would have to guarantee the equal power of all citizens in the U.S, which means suddenly all the nefarious things other Trump supporters have tried to sell me would suddenly matter - a lot. But as things stand now, Biden could have indeed won via some act any sane person would call cheating, yet still be the legitimate president. Indeed, if (hypothetically) an investigation uncovered tons of fake mail-in ballots created to sway the election in favor of Biden, and SCOTUS was asked to issue a ruling, they would be in the right to punt the whole issue back to the states, because the states are the ones making the rules here. However, if your individual presidential vote was a national issue, under a national popular vote system, everything raises to the federal level. SCOTUS would suddenly have to question the legitimacy of a sitting president. And this would have some serious consequences, possibly undermining the legitimacy of the whole system.

This is all to say that the electoral college system helps avoid serious conflict over the seat of the president. It safely contains any problems which may arise within the state of origin, so they can't become a national issue. So there can be no question of legitimacy, because the President's legitimacy ultimately rests on the legitimacy of the state legislatures. And considering how much of a focal point the seat of the presidency has been in national politics over the past few decades, this is a good thing. We really don't need to be having a civil war over who the real president is.

[Spirit of Hope]

Even if electoral college votes were directly proportional to population that still wouldn't solve another problem with the electoral college, the winner takes all nature of the states electoral college votes. This could be reduced in various ways by states legislatures, but they have basically no reason to do this as it only weakens their states power in the electoral college.

What the founders intended is basically irrelevant to how things currently work and what is the best system for choosing the president and other elected officials.

[Galiantus III]

Even if electoral college votes were directly proportional to population that still wouldn't solve another problem with the electoral college, the winner takes all nature of the states electoral college votes. This could be reduced in various ways by states legislatures, but they have basically no reason to do this as it only weakens their states power in the electoral college.

What the founders intended is basically irrelevant to how things currently work and what is the best system for choosing the president and other elected officials.

Why is a national popular vote the best system for selecting someone who shouldn't even have much control over your personal life? If the president has control over your personal life in any way, something is seriously wrong and we need to start cutting presidential powers to remedy that problem.

[American Legionaries]

Even if electoral college votes were directly proportional to population that still wouldn't solve another problem with the electoral college, the winner takes all nature of the states electoral college votes. This could be reduced in various ways by states legislatures, but they have basically no reason to do this as it only weakens their states power in the electoral college.

What the founders intended is basically irrelevant to how things currently work and what is the best system for choosing the president and other elected officials.

Why is a national popular vote the best system for selecting someone who shouldn't even have much control over your personal life? If the president has control over your personal life in any way, something is seriously wrong and we need to start cutting presidential powers to remedy that problem.

Rather they were ever intended to or not, the methodology by which a president nominates SCOTUS justices creates a significant amount of control over people's personal lives.

[Spirit of Hope]

Even if electoral college votes were directly proportional to population that still wouldn't solve another problem with the electoral college, the winner takes all nature of the states electoral college votes. This could be reduced in various ways by states legislatures, but they have basically no reason to do this as it only weakens their states power in the electoral college.

What the founders intended is basically irrelevant to how things currently work and what is the best system for choosing the president and other elected officials.

Why is a national popular vote the best system for selecting someone who shouldn't even have much control over your personal life? If the president has control over your personal life in any way, something is seriously wrong and we need to start cutting presidential powers to remedy that problem.

I don't know what world you live in, but the person who is directly in charge of the armed forces, justice department, post office, CIA, CFPB, EPA, FCC, FDIC, FTC, NTSB, and SEC has a lot of influence on my life.

Now as to the best way to choose a head of state, I think it would be a popular vote organized as as either an instantaneous runoff system or a single transferable vote system. They are some of the best ways to get a candidate who most closely resembles the views of the people at large. I think this should be paired with some major reform of how the house and senate operate but that isn't the topic of this thread.

[Ifreann]

Even if electoral college votes were directly proportional to population that still wouldn't solve another problem with the electoral college, the winner takes all nature of the states electoral college votes. This could be reduced in various ways by states legislatures, but they have basically no reason to do this as it only weakens their states power in the electoral college.

What the founders intended is basically irrelevant to how things currently work and what is the best system for choosing the president and other elected officials.

Why is a national popular vote the best system for selecting someone who shouldn't even have much control over your personal life? If the president has control over your personal life in any way, something is seriously wrong and we need to start cutting presidential powers to remedy that problem.

Because the American people should get to decide who is the President of America. How much power the president has is irrelevant.

[Haganham]

Why is a national popular vote the best system for selecting someone who shouldn't even have much control over your personal life? If the president has control over your personal life in any way, something is seriously wrong and we need to start cutting presidential powers to remedy that problem.

Rather they were ever intended to or not, the methodology by which a president nominates SCOTUS justices creates a significant amount of control over people's personal lives.

Only because the legislature has divested too much of it's legislative power to the bureaucracy and judiciary. Look at the panic about Roe as an example. There's been 50 years to codify Roe V Wade with federal legislation but congress has never done so. Even now with it repealed the response has been to campaign to take back the courts rather then pass a law.

The fact is the way we apportion EC votes is similar to the way the EU apportions votes to it's member states, and that's not a coincidence. The US, as a federal union, is much closer to the EU then any unitary state. This means that in addition to the principle that each citizen being equal There is a principle that each polity is an equal members of the union. In the US we do this through bicameralism and the electoral collage. The house gives each voters equal representation, and the senate gives each member state the same. The president, since it can't be bicameral, is elected using a mix of both.

[Spirit of Hope]

Rather they were ever intended to or not, the methodology by which a president nominates SCOTUS justices creates a significant amount of control over people's personal lives.

Only because the legislature has divested too much of it's legislative power to the bureaucracy and judiciary. Look at the panic about Roe as an example. There's been 50 years to codify Roe V Wade with federal legislation but congress has never done so. Even now with it repealed the response has been to campaign to take back the courts rather then pass a law.

The fact is the way we apportion EC votes is similar to the way the EU apportions votes to it's member states, and that's not a coincidence. The US, as a federal union, is much closer to the EU then any unitary state. This means that in addition to the principle that each citizen being equal There is a principle that each polity is an equal members of the union. In the US we do this through bicameralism and the electoral collage. The house gives each voters equal representation, and the senate gives each member state the same. The president, since it can't be bicameral, is elected using a mix of both.

First the US isn't anything like the European Union. States have no where near the same sovereignty as the member states of the EU members and the federal government of the United States has far more power than the EU does. Especially post Civil War and the 14th Amendment, which was only further driven by the increasing power of the federal government throughout the 20th century.

Nor does the electoral college effectively do what you are claiming it does, the way electoral college votes are distributed doesn't meaningfully make any state more represented/powerful in the presidential race.

While the increased voting power of some states is what gets all the attention, that isn't the major reason that the electoral college is bad. It is bad because of how states apportion their electoral college votes, overwhelmingly through first past combined with winner takes all. This combination across almost all states means that it is very easy for a president who a majority of voters voted against to win in the electoral college, even if states were equal in population.

It should also be noted that the difference between states has changed significantly from the writing of the constitution to today. In 1790 the largest state by population (Virginia, 747,000) was only 12 times more populous than the smallest state by population (Delaware, 59,000). In 2020 the largest state (California, 39,538,000) is 68 times more populous than smallest state by population (Wyoming, 576,000). The founders were not perfect men, they were deeply flawed men creating a compromise government based on the circumstances of their times. To continue to use what they created when the circumstances have dramatically changed strikes me as silly.

[Sorist]

In the United States, the president was chosen by electoral college, and senators were initially chosen the state legislatures; and both electors and senators were initially chosen by state legislatures rather than by popular vote (only the House of Representatives was chosen by direct election).

I know I'm digging up old material, but this isn't entirely true. Yes, all of the senators were chosen by state legislatures, but that isn't true of the electors of the electoral college. Whether electors were chosen by the legislatures or selected via popular election depended on each individual state's laws (and still does, by the way). In the election of 1788, America's first presidential elections, states like Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire all had popular elections for their electors, whereas states like New Jersey, Connecticut, and South Carolina had the state legislatures choose the electors.

[Galiantus III]

Why is a national popular vote the best system for selecting someone who shouldn't even have much control over your personal life? If the president has control over your personal life in any way, something is seriously wrong and we need to start cutting presidential powers to remedy that problem.

Rather they were ever intended to or not, the methodology by which a president nominates SCOTUS justices creates a significant amount of control over people's personal lives.

Only in the sense that they can tell a state or one of the other two federal branches "you can't do that". By default, state and federal governments are the ones exerting control. Involvement from SCOTUS is all about limiting that control according to the constitution. It is actually very important that members of SCOTUS aren't bound by popular opinion, because they are supposed to act as a check on popular opinion (i.e. Congress). Part of the reason we have problems with expanded government power in this country is the fact that presidents are virtually elected by popular opinion, and they make appointments to SCOTUS. This means the President, House of Representatives, and SCOTUS often align in terms of political agenda, making it very easy to establish policy on the popular whims of the particular decade, while the voice of experience is silenced.

Why is a national popular vote the best system for selecting someone who shouldn't even have much control over your personal life? If the president has control over your personal life in any way, something is seriously wrong and we need to start cutting presidential powers to remedy that problem.

I don't know what world you live in, but the person who is directly in charge of the armed forces, justice department, post office, CIA, CFPB, EPA, FCC, FDIC, FTC, NTSB, and SEC has a lot of influence on my life.

By comparison to State and municipal governments, and even Congress, the President has basically zero control over your personal life. As for all those bureaucratic organizations you named, Congress could abolish any of them, dictate a particular mode of administration, or add new ones essentially on a whim. Possibly the only one they couldn't do this with would be the military.

Now as to the best way to choose a head of state, I think it would be a popular vote organized as as either an instantaneous runoff system or a single transferable vote system. They are some of the best ways to get a candidate who most closely resembles the views of the people at large. I think this should be paired with some major reform of how the house and senate operate but that isn't the topic of this thread.

I would love to discuss electoral systems in general (especially changes for congressional elections). But yeah... thread.

Why is a national popular vote the best system for selecting someone who shouldn't even have much control over your personal life? If the president has control over your personal life in any way, something is seriously wrong and we need to start cutting presidential powers to remedy that problem.

Because the American people should get to decide who is the President of America. How much power the president has is irrelevant.

The people do decide the president. I don't see how this is a workable criticism of the electoral college.

While the increased voting power of some states is what gets all the attention, that isn't the major reason that the electoral college is bad. It is bad because of how states apportion their electoral college votes, overwhelmingly through first past combined with winner takes all. This combination across almost all states means that it is very easy for a president who a majority of voters voted against to win in the electoral college, even if states were equal in population.

FPTP is a massive problem, but I don't see why a state wouldn't consolidate all its power to select a president. It seems counterproductive to split your vote.

"it is very easy for a president who a majority of voters voted against to win in the electoral college"
The statement "voted against" is a pretty loose term, especially when there are more than two candidates on the ballot. Going by the 2016 election, you could argue a majority of voters were "against" both Trump and Clinton, based on the fact that neither won a majority: Clinton won 48%, Trump won 45.9%, and the remaining 6.1% voted for someone else. I think it is safe to assume anyone who voted for Clinton was against Trump, and anyone who voted for Trump was against Clinton. But the other 6.1% is interesting. Arguably, those voters were voting against both Trump and Clinton, and therefore a majority voted against both major party candidates. By your statement it is a travesty either of them won.

[Forsher]

By your statement it is a travesty either of them won.

I find it interesting you imagine this cannot possibly be their point.

[Ifreann]

Because the American people should get to decide who is the President of America. How much power the president has is irrelevant.

The people do decide the president. I don't see how this is a workable criticism of the electoral college.

They do not, and I suspect you understand that perfectly well.

[Gustatopolis]

Maybe it would be fair divide the states in electoral districts (like what already happens) and who wins in each district get the delegate (or delegates depending of the population) from that district. In the current sistem in a hypothetical situation where a candidate wins in Illinois only one vote ahead from the other candidate, all the 19 (or 20) delegates from Illinois goes to him. In what I'm thinking if one candidate wins in one district he gets the delegates from that district only, not all in the state, I think this already happens to some extent in Maine and Nebraska.

I don't know if it would be logistically viable to divide the US electoral college like that, maybe it would make the situation even more complicated, but it would seem fairer because in the current situation if in a state only the capital district (which would be the most populous) a candidate wins, but on every other districts other candidate wins, all state delegates would go for the first candidate anyway. If it changed, the first candidate would probably still win in that state, but delegates from other districts would go to the candidate who actually won in them.

[Galiantus III]

The people do decide the president. I don't see how this is a workable criticism of the electoral college.

They do not, and I suspect you understand that perfectly well.

If we don't who does?

By your statement it is a travesty either of them won.

I find it interesting you imagine this cannot possibly be their point.

I'm applying the obvious conclusion of what they said. You don't say "it is very easy for a president who a majority of voters voted against to win" if you don't mean you are opposed to someone winning who the majority of voters are against. Plus I don't think this outcome where we have two major parties selecting candidates the general public hates is a consequence of the electoral college, but first-past-the-post. And I assure you it is going to be a lot easier to modify our elections at a state level than it is going to be to amend the constitution. We could abolish the electoral college and the same fundamental problem would remain: unpopular candidates the majority of people hate are still going to win. Heck, a lot of people who voted for Trump or Clinton were opposed to both, and simply voted for who they hated least. So it isn't even accurate to pretend either had support anywhere near the level their final popular vote tally would suggest.

[Forsher]

I find it interesting you imagine this cannot possibly be their point.

I'm applying the obvious conclusion of what they said.

The obvious conclusion is that they're not an idiot and they know what they wrote, i.e. it is a problem that Bill Clinton won without a majority, just as it is a problem that Trump won without a majority and Hilary Clinton would've been a winner without a majority.

Maybe you're right that they misspoke, but there is absolutely no reason why you should assume that.

the same fundamental problem would remain: unpopular candidates the majority of people hate are still going to win

This is a voting system, not a direct election problem. Consider IRV, for example.

I see you know that FPP causes this condition, which makes it all the more strange that you make the assumptions you do.

[Ifreann]

They do not, and I suspect you understand that perfectly well.

If we don't who does?

The electoral college, obviously.

[San Lumen]

Maybe it would be fair divide the states in electoral districts (like what already happens) and who wins in each district get the delegate (or delegates depending of the population) from that district. In the current sistem in a hypothetical situation where a candidate wins in Illinois only one vote ahead from the other candidate, all the 19 (or 20) delegates from Illinois goes to him. In what I'm thinking if one candidate wins in one district he gets the delegates from that district only, not all in the state, I think this already happens to some extent in Maine and Nebraska.

I don't know if it would be logistically viable to divide the US electoral college like that, maybe it would make the situation even more complicated, but it would seem fairer because in the current situation if in a state only the capital district (which would be the most populous) a candidate wins, but on every other districts other candidate wins, all state delegates would go for the first candidate anyway. If it changed, the first candidate would probably still win in that state, but delegates from other districts would go to the candidate who actually won in them.

Terrible idea. The presidency could be gerrymandered.

In no state is winning the capital city enough to carry the state. There are only 17 states where the capital is the largest city.

The metro area though there might be a few.

[Galiantus III]

If we don't who does?

The electoral college, obviously.

Do you mean the electors of the electoral college? Because they pledge before the election to vote a certain way, they are chosen by the people, and there are laws against faithless electors.

I'm applying the obvious conclusion of what they said.

The obvious conclusion is that they're not an idiot and they know what they wrote, i.e. it is a problem that Bill Clinton won without a majority, just as it is a problem that Trump won without a majority and Hilary Clinton would've been a winner without a majority.

Maybe you're right that they misspoke, but there is absolutely no reason why you should assume that.

the same fundamental problem would remain: unpopular candidates the majority of people hate are still going to win

This is a voting system, not a direct election problem. Consider IRV, for example.

I see you know that FPP causes this condition, which makes it all the more strange that you make the assumptions you do.

Not really. He said the electoral college made it easier for candidates the majority votes against to win. Which is false, because that is not a consequence of the electoral college so much as it is FPTP.

[Arisyan]

Guys, for the last god damn time literally no other country on Earth uses this system. Sure, some countries do use an electoral college to elect a President, but all of those elections are indirect and the President is almost always a figurehead who has little to no actual power. The American President has a lot of power, and is elected directly in the sense that ordinary people go out and vote for them. I don't care about "muh constitution" or "muh state's rights" because in the end, the US should be a democracy and the electoral college is not democratic. No, California and New York won't decide who becomes President, that argument just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Also, Presidents win with the plurality of votes all the time, it's at least better than the person who won less votes getting the Presidency. Plus, if you want to solve that problem just establish a two-round system or IRV. Literally anything else would work better than the current system.

[American Legionaries]

Guys, for the last god damn time literally no other country on Earth uses this system. Sure, some countries do use an electoral college to elect a President, but all of those elections are indirect and the President is almost always a figurehead who has little to no actual power. The American President has a lot of power, and is elected directly in the sense that ordinary people go out and vote for them. I don't care about "muh constitution" or "muh state's rights" because in the end, the US should be a democracy and the electoral college is not democratic. No, California and New York won't decide who becomes President, that argument just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Also, Presidents win with the plurality of votes all the time, it's at least better than the person who won less votes getting the Presidency. Plus, if you want to solve that problem just establish a two-round system or IRV. Literally anything else would work better than the current system.

We've successfully elected a president for over two hundred years, this system seems to work just fine.

[Galiantus III]

Guys, for the last god damn time literally no other country on Earth uses this system. Sure, some countries do use an electoral college to elect a President, but all of those elections are indirect and the President is almost always a figurehead who has little to no actual power. The American President has a lot of power, and is elected directly in the sense that ordinary people go out and vote for them. I don't care about "muh constitution" or "muh state's rights" because in the end, the US should be a democracy and the electoral college is not democratic. No, California and New York won't decide who becomes President, that argument just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Right. We're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic.

Also, Presidents win with the plurality of votes all the time, it's at least better than the person who won less votes getting the Presidency. Plus, if you want to solve that problem just establish a two-round system or IRV. Literally anything else would work better than the current system.

There's no reason we can't establish those electoral systems and keep the electoral college. Actually, a part of me wants to see all the anti-EC people successfully implement IRV in every state, because it would make abolishing the EC a logistical nightmare: IRV isn't precinct-summable, so all the ballots have to be counted in a central location.

[Spirit of Hope]

I don't know what world you live in, but the person who is directly in charge of the armed forces, justice department, post office, CIA, CFPB, EPA, FCC, FDIC, FTC, NTSB, and SEC has a lot of influence on my life.

By comparison to State and municipal governments, and even Congress, the President has basically zero control over your personal life. As for all those bureaucratic organizations you named, Congress could abolish any of them, dictate a particular mode of administration, or add new ones essentially on a whim. Possibly the only one they couldn't do this with would be the military.

Again the president has a lot of effects and control on an average persons life, that other groups have more control/effect can also be true. The President can order agencies of the executive branch to create new regulations, discard old ones, conduct new investigations, or to stop investigations basically at a whim. There are some constraints and legal action would likely be inevitable but that doesn't change the fact that what the president does has huge implications for every citizen. While congress can abolish or create any new agencies, that would require them to vote on something, which in practical terms takes time and is not guaranteed to happen

While the increased voting power of some states is what gets all the attention, that isn't the major reason that the electoral college is bad. It is bad because of how states apportion their electoral college votes, overwhelmingly through first past combined with winner takes all. This combination across almost all states means that it is very easy for a president who a majority of voters voted against to win in the electoral college, even if states were equal in population.

FPTP is a massive problem, but I don't see why a state wouldn't consolidate all its power to select a president. It seems counterproductive to split your vote.

They have no reasons to give up FPTP. That doesn't stop making it terrible.

"it is very easy for a president who a majority of voters voted against to win in the electoral college"
The statement "voted against" is a pretty loose term, especially when there are more than two candidates on the ballot. Going by the 2016 election, you could argue a majority of voters were "against" both Trump and Clinton, based on the fact that neither won a majority: Clinton won 48%, Trump won 45.9%, and the remaining 6.1% voted for someone else. I think it is safe to assume anyone who voted for Clinton was against Trump, and anyone who voted for Trump was against Clinton. But the other 6.1% is interesting. Arguably, those voters were voting against both Trump and Clinton, and therefore a majority voted against both major party candidates. By your statement it is a travesty either of them won.

Yes. People shouldn't be winning the presidency if the majority of votes are cast against them. Hence why I would say a instantaneous runoff system would be a good idea.

Guys, for the last god damn time literally no other country on Earth uses this system. Sure, some countries do use an electoral college to elect a President, but all of those elections are indirect and the President is almost always a figurehead who has little to no actual power. The American President has a lot of power, and is elected directly in the sense that ordinary people go out and vote for them. I don't care about "muh constitution" or "muh state's rights" because in the end, the US should be a democracy and the electoral college is not democratic. No, California and New York won't decide who becomes President, that argument just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Also, Presidents win with the plurality of votes all the time, it's at least better than the person who won less votes getting the Presidency. Plus, if you want to solve that problem just establish a two-round system or IRV. Literally anything else would work better than the current system.

We've successfully elected a president for over two hundred years, this system seems to work just fine.

This system is terribly flawed, that we continue to use it to elect president mostly just says we are to lazy/divided to make a change even when we know it is flawed.