The electoral college really does none of the things it is supposed to do.
And ponder this before you say I am being a "liberal whiner" or such:
Clinton won a gigantic 370-168 electoral vote majority and became president, despite having won only 43 percent of the popular vote [in 1992].
Five million votes separated Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the popular vote during the 2012 election. It would be a stretch to call the 2012 presidential election a particularly close one with a margin that large. But because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College, a shift in just three hundred thousand votes in four states would have made Romney, rather than Obama, the president. Similarly John Kerry would have defeated George Bush in the Electoral College with a shift of fewer than a hundred thousand votes in Ohio.
Think about that when you try to say I am just being a whiner.
The Electoral College is anti-democratic and that is not a good thing in a nation which has presented itself as having free and fair elections to the point of fighting wars based on that lie.
See also, Eric Black's series in the Minn Post (not in any particular order):
- 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem
- In defense of the Electoral College system … and some responses
- How to work around the Electoral College — without amending the Constitution
- Picking a president: dangers — and weird outcomes — of the Electoral College
- Why the Constitution’s Framers didn’t want us to directly elect the president
- Our Electoral College system is weird — and not in a good way
- Imagining some other ways to run elections
- Why the same two parties dominate our two-party system
Trump’s victory another example of how Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones