James Wilkinson Sword used his keyboard to write :
On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends
up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10
million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less
important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of
people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same
importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes
is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes
for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million
votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

I would strongly suspect voter fraud. It is not very likely that
everybody in an area is in agreement as to who to vote for. But you
just hit on a problem that does exist, that each area (State) gets to
throw away all the votes for the perceived loser and attribute them to
the winner of the popular vote in their respective areas.

IMO, this erodes the handicapping effect which Cindy Hamilton
attributed to the Electoral College above.