Without it the residents of less populated states would have no voice and the large population centers could control our elections and elect people who would put policies in place to help the high population areas at the expense of the rest of the country.

I keep hearing that meme parroted here over and over and over, yet no one has yet demonstrated how it would work. Y'all seem to think endlessly repeating an idea but never proving it somehow makes it a real thing. Whelp --- it doesn't. As I've pointed out relentlessly from the start here, a voter in downtown Manhattan is the same number of voters as one in Winfield Kansas --- one. The definition of "one" is universal and non-negotiable. Unless maybe this is 'math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better'.
The founders had it right, it works.
Actually the Founders didn't have in mind what we have. They lost control. They originally had in mind that Virginia should run the country, and for four decades it did. But when the whole "winner-take-all" malarkey started snowballing like nuclear proliferation, James Madison proposed a prohibition on it:
>> One of the most common criticisms of plans to modify or eliminate the Electoral College is that to do so would be to deviate from the wisdom of the Founders of the American political system. But the "Father of the Constitution" himself, James Madison, was never in favor of our current system for electing the president, one in which nearly all states award their electoral votes to the statewide popular vote winner. He ultimately backed a constitutional amendment to prohibit this practice.
,,, In 1823, Madison wrote a
remarkable letter to George Hay explaining his views of the Electoral College, his strong opposition to states voting as winner-take-all blocs and his view of the origins of the winner-take-all rule. In addition to disenfranchising districts that voted against the preference of the state, Madison worried that statewide voting would increase sectionalism and the strength of geographic parties. He wrote that his views were widely shared by others at the Constitutional Convention, and that the winner-take-all approach had been forced on many states due to its adoption in other states: "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [e.g., winner-take-all rule] & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example." --
Madison and Presidential Vote
Madison did that despite the fact that it would undermine the power grab his own state of Virginia had benefited from since the country itself began.
>> Attempts to defend the Electoral College based on the fact that it was introduced by brilliant political thinkers such as Madison fail to appreciate the unique political context in which it was created and the fundamental differences between that time and ours. As Madison
said of the presidential election system in 1830 and would likely say again today, "a solid improvement of it is a desideratum that ought to be welcomed by all enlightened patriots." << (ibid)
You don't like it this time because your candidate lost. I get that and understand it.
I didn't even have a candidate to lose. And I've been on this same track since months and years before the election. You'll find my posts all over this forum saying the same things about the EC for
at least the last calendar year. You'll find them especially in the third party threads, which is exactly what I did when I lived there in Louisiana, since I understood that with the EC tossing my vote in the shitcan it was the only recourse I had.
And that link I just quoted above --- it's from 2012. June, long before that election, when there was nothing going on in the EC.
So again, while I understand summa y'all need a rich fantasy life because you can't cope with reality, I don't choose to join it, thanks anyway.
But from a practical standpoint, the constitution is not going to be changed to switch to pure democracy, because pure democracy is the tyranny of the majority, a thing that you dems and libs rant and rave against every day.
I don't even believe in "tyranny of the majority", Doodles. I don't do Doublethink.