As it stands, a majority of states can support a candidate and he would not win, and a majority of people can support a candidate and he would not win.
Well, yes, if you go out of your way to ask the wrong questions, you're going to get the wrong answer. Neither the majority of states nor the majority of voters should be the relevant metric. That's why the metric actually used is a sum of weights of states.
And the weight gives more representation to those in smaller states.
You've voiced a very emphatic opinion, which essentially boils down to you being a majoritarian (to my surprise), while I'm a utilitarian.
Why does the electoral college have more utility than other systems? I fail to see how there is any more utility in awarding votes per state, especially in a system that currently fails to address even a single aspect of mathematically fair elections, whether we're talking about states or people.
You also claim it "balances voter turnout", as if that is inherently good, and I have no idea why it should be. Why should a state where less people voted inherently have the same say as a state where more people voted? Even if you view the United States more as a collection of sovereign states, state representation is at the Legislative level, in the House and Senate. There's no inherent reason for the Executive to be voted in using a system that gives the same value to 1 Alabaman as 4 million Alabamans.
You also chose to double-down on criticising the same parts of EC as me. I really don't know what people try to achieve when they do that. "What? You said you support this system but with changes X, Y and Z? That's terrible, this system would only work if X, Y and Z were considered!!!!" Like, yes, I'm glad we agree.
That's good that you think the Electoral College has issues, but that's the problem. The Electoral College has problems X, Y, and Z. It'd be great if it were proportional, and if it wasn't winner take all, and most importantly, if there were no electors at all, but those things aren't going to change. To do so would involve a state choosing to purposefully decrease its influence in presidential elections.
What's worse, those problems are decreasing voter turnout in non-swing states, which would seem to cause a far greater problem than you're trying to fix by giving states with equal populations equal say.
As to why balancing voter turnout is a good thing: I sincerely hope you're never poor enough to not be able to vote. The lack of empathy from Democrats on this issue is absolutely shocking.
The electoral college doesn't voice the opinions of the people who don't vote, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. A person who does not vote, electoral college or no, has no voice in the election. All you've done is move that issue down to the state level. A person "too poor to vote" still has no influence on the outcome of their state's election, and as such, has no voice in the electoral college either. You are confusing phantom voices of non-voters with artificially inflating the value of those that do vote.
- The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.
- The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of states.
- The electoral college fails to account for people who don't vote. There is no election system that can do this, and claiming it exists is ridiculous.