Deciding a presidential election in a country the geographical size of the U.S. using popular vote alone is not truely as representative as the electoral college.
One party could rule because they controlled a few population centers, but the rest of the country may have different needs. It makes more sense to win majority votes in more places throughout the country then having an election decided because of New York City and Los angeles and a few other large population centers.
That's a poor justification for EC. People matter - not acreage. States get to elect their federal representative. The people (popular vote) should elect the president.
No, what you don't see is a few very large population centers are much easier to bribe and control than an entire country. And what does someone who lives in Los Angeles necessarily know about the life of farmers throughout the midwest or North Dakota. Someone like Hillary or Warren in office could do an amazing amount of damage in a short period of time.... thank god for the EC
Look, there have only been FIVE presidents who didn't also win the popular vote - so your point is moot. Meaning that 40 presidents also won the popular vote.
Well, I KNOW that had Hillary won the electoral college instead of Trump we would not be having this conversation. Had Trump lost, I would have accepted it as would have most all who voted for Trump.WHY is it that whenever Democrats lose they have to start talking about changing the rules? I mean, they changed the whistle blower rules to help get rid of Trump, and they changed Impeachment rules as well..... all to suit their needs.
Now doubt, should Democrats win a presidency, they will also attempt to stack the supreme court..... because, again, they always need to change things when they lose.
And now, its getting rid of the E.C. because they lost. Why dont they just try appealing to the needs of the country? Hillary hardly tried at all and Trump out campaigned her while she could barely stand on her own two feet.