SHould the Electoral College be abolished?

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm going to discuss some counter-arguments to pro-EC arguments I see constantly

1) "It'll ignore most of the country". Our EC system already ignores most of the country, since only swing states decide the election. In 2016, 134 electoral votes were decided by less than a 5% margin. That's 25% of the country, the other 75% were clear and didn't matter to the outcome.

2) "People in rural areas will get ignored". So let's look at elections at the state level where no EC system equivalent is present. Do people in rural counties get ignored? Or rather, do people who don't campaign in rural areas get slammed in those areas come election time? I think it's the latter. Going back to #1, people in urban and rural areas alike get ignored in safe red and blue states. Yet there's this mythical idea that once we get rid of the electoral college, politicians will only care about the big cities.

3) This is more my own counter-point, but do we need a system like this at a state level? Do we need to assign a certain number of votes to counties, winner take all, and then have the election be determined by how a few counties vote? In Nevada, whoever wins Clark County would be the winner of the state, even if the person who didn't win the county won overall something like 52-45. We would NEVER accept anything like that, so why do we do it at a national level? Is it because the country is so big? I mean California is bigger now than the nation was at one time, so I don't see that point.

There's many more points I could use, If someone wants I could spew them out. Really I just don't understand the defense of this system. From a democratic standpoint, I don't know how its acceptable that the person who got more votes in a national election isn't elected. People just have a gut reaction against change or they were happy with the results this time around

[ElectionsGuy]

No. I like that you have to win a lot of people in a lot of different places instead of just a lot of people in a few walled off cities. But that's just me.

This. CA and NY alone shouldn't decide who is president.

California alone decided the popular vote in this election. What you can do is try and persuade people in California, or anywhere in the country really, since everybody's vote will matter equally. Unlike in the electoral college, where a vote in Wyoming counts more than three times more per electoral vote than one in New York. On top of that, it wouldn't matter under our system that you could get California from 60-40 to 55-45, because all 55 electoral votes would still belong to Democrats. Under popular vote, that could be the difference of the election.

Everybody would decide who's president, every vote would be equal. California and New York are big states, if Republicans won the popular vote then it would make just as much sense to say "Texas alone shouldn't decide who is president". Really, its more like a certain margin of voters which happens to be a margin in one particular state decided who was president. And I don't see what's wrong with that.