This is not much different than stating a national popular vote disenfranchises voters because when one wins 51% of the vote and they are elected the other 49% were 'thrown out.'Not winning is not the same as being disenfrancised. Your vote counted in YOUR state.
"Not winning" is not the same as being disenfranchised, correct. Having one's vote tossed in the round file however, is. And that's how it works.
My vote "counted" in my state, only to the extent that it was not clear going in how the entire state population would settle. --- therefore I had a say in it. My friends and relatives in Texas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California, didn't have that luxury. They were disenfranchised. Any or all of them could have voted with their state, against their state, or not voted at all, and the effect in all three cases would be exactly the same --- nothing.
That's what I call disenfranchised. It's arguably worse than not being allowed a vote at all --- "OK you can vote, but we're just gonna throw it out".
So once the votes were counted in my state it was resolved that the state's Electors will declare that "the people of North Carolina cast all 15 votes for Donald Rump" ------ which is absolute bullshit, and tosses into that same round file everybody who didn't vote that way, which is in the millions. That's disenfranchisement. We did not vote unanimously and it's nakedly insane to declare we did.
Now if the state's electors would say, "8 votes for Rump, 7 votes for Clinton" that would be actually counting the people's votes. But that's not how they do it.
If your state has a bigger population then YOUR state has more influence than a smaller state.
I'm not a "state". I'm a "people". And at no time in this election or any other did I confer with the entire population of my state to come to an agreement on how we would vote. That has never happened, anywhere ever.
I agree that the process we follow does disenfranchise voters that do not see a possibility that their votes will change the outcome (as in CA is certainly going Democrat and TX is certainly going Republican) but that is not the same as stating those votes do not count or are thrown out. Neither of those statements are true - they are counted and they are not thrown out.
It is disenfranchisement in the sense that every voter who did not vote as their state did, is deliberately misrepresented by their electors.
My state for example will, under the traditional system, cast all 15 of its EVs for Rump. I can guarantee you that the voters of this state did NOT unanimously vote for him. That's a gross misrepresentation. Were they voting a fair representation of this state's voter's wishes, they would cast 8 for the Republican and 7 for the Democrat.
Ever seen a football game that was a close match but one team prevailed 31-30? Well they don't report that score as "31 to nothing".