When the Electoral College was established, only 6% of the population had the right to vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_Uni

When the Electoral College was established, only 6% of the population had the right to vote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_t... Besides extending the right to vote to the entire population, we've also switched to elected US Senators (originally they were appointed by state legislature) and presidential primaries (a Democratic Party invention after the 1968 convention disaster). The history of the United States has been to enfranchise more voters. To become more democratic. The Electoral College is an anachronism. It does not serve its original purpose and has not for a very long time: http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2020/11/whats-wrong-with-electoral-college-and.html http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2020/11/whats-wrong-with-electoral-... The president is the sole representative of the entire country. It's a position that should be elected by popular vote. It was nearly so in the 70s: https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-nearly-abolished-thurmond https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-nearly-abolis... Abolishing the EC is supported by a majority of Americans: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/04/26/5-the-electoral-college-congress-and-representation/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/04/26/5-the-electo... > Why should people who cluster in a few cities get to decide how the rest of the places are governed? Because land doesn't vote, people do. And it's not a few cities, it's a lot of cities: https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-population/ https://engaging-data.com/county-electoral-map-land-vs-popul... (Select "Show Population Circles" and "No County Overlap") Why should a minority of voters get to hold the majority hostage just because they happen to be distributed across the country in rural areas? And because there are two Dakotas but only one California? And because the number of Congressional districts got pinned to 435 leaving CA and NY with too few compared to Wyoming? And because the Congressional Apportionment Amendment failed to be ratified? We're not talking about the majority infringing on minority rights or mob rule. Rights are protected by the constitution and the rule of law, not by the EC. Even without the EC, we'd still be a democratic constitutional republic. We're talking about things like making progress on climate change, universal healthcare, and, well, a ton of policies supported by a majority of Americans that we cannot make progress on because one party insists on labeling everything it doesn't like as being socialist and radical. Disclosure: we're clearly having a political discussion here. I'm a liberal/progressive/Democrat. I'm tired of not making progress even though my opinion is in the majority. Defending the status quo is a privileged position. I'm doing fine in life. I could easily be a conservative. I was born to good parents. I have good paying job, a wife, two kids, a dog. I want for nothing. I want every American to be able to have the opportunity to have what I have. I believe that government is how humans work collectively to solve problems. Whenever I see a GoFundMe for a surgery or rent, I interpret that as a failure of governance. I cannot solve the world's problems through individual action. It has to be collective action. So, I vote democratic and Democratic. I don't think Democrats get everything right, which is why I'm especially saddened by what the GOP has become since... well, Eisenhower if I'm being honest. $0.02. Addendum: my preference would be for the US to have multi-party proportional representation as much as possible at the Federal level. I like Lee Drutman's ideas.