There's the additional point that the electoral college failed to fulfill its only purpose, of denying the presidency from an unqualified candidate. Of course, that all hinges on what "unqualified" means, which can mean whatever you want it to, but it can't be denied that this is the closest it's come to fulfilling that role on those grounds.
Eventually people will care enough about the high proportion of wasted votes in our elections that one of the parties will need to adopt a reform position, or be replaced by one that will. Maybe this election will be traumatic enough for the Democrats that it'll stick past the next pendulum swing.
When I hear complaints about "Why should your vote count 3x what mine does, despite there being so few of you in comparison to my demographic!?", what I hear is "Why does my vote to eat you count 1/3 what your vote to not be eaten does!? There are 3X as many of us wolves! Dont our votes count!?"
The intention of this argument is good (protecting a minority from a hostile legislating majority) but weighting votes as a way of accomplishing that doesn't make any sense, and could be used to justify any obviously undemocratic arrangement. It's especially absurd when looking at the electoral college; it is true that the college was intended to give slightly more representation to low population states due to the inclusion of senators, but that's not why the "vote weighting" is so messed up right now. It's messed up because in the 1910s congress failed to pass new legislation expanding the number of seats in congress in proportion with population growth, and their dysfunction back then is what now leaves us with these ridiculous 700,000-1,000,000 population congressional districts compared to districts in 1910 with 63,000 each. You're not defending a grand plan on the part of wise old Jefferson to protect honest farmers from carpetbaggers, you're defending the product of a stupid and shortsighted congress over a hundred years ago that accidentally created this problem.
..
But really with all that said, I think the bigger issue with the EC in particular is the winner-take-all nature of the states. Nevermind getting 2/3 of a North Dakota vote, if you voted for a person who did not win your state, you got 0 votes. Politicians don't ignore California because their votes are worth less due to differences in delegate count and population, it's due to that vast body of wasted votes when the state flips 100% blue, both among the surplus democrats and all of the republicans.
20 unread posts hnnnnnnng