Some electoral college math: Small states way overweighted

[etherealtruth]

62. I clearly addressed both points?

....but to your new point ... "we" would always win, if one defines "we" as the American people. My personal choice for president may or may not win. I would have more faith in a president, from either party, that works to support the will of the people than the will of thei party or a few states

In a symbolic vote (to counter your "points" again), electors would be voting for the winner of the popular vote symbolically and its association with states or states votes are irrelevant (my example of the states with the largest number of electors was to illustrate that the commitment is to the will of the citizens of the US). Electors would no longer vote for anything but the popular vote.

"If Congress wanted to keep the electoral college but make it fairer, there is a simple (but unlikely) solution: increase the size of the House of Representatives. There is nothing in the constitution mandating a particular size except that each member must represent at least 30,000 people (which puts an upper limit on the House of about 10,000 members). In fact, the House has been expanded repeatedly in the past as the nation grew. The most recent expansion was in 1911, when the U.S. population was about 93 million, so a representative had 212,000 constituents. With the current population of 293 million*, a representative has 674,000 constituents. To bring this number back to its 1911 value, the House should be expanded to 1370 members. Since a state's electoral vote is equal to its congressional representation, with 1370 House members, the effect of the 100 senators would be much smaller and the electoral votes would be almost proportional to population. To increase the size of the House, Congress would merely have to pass a law; the states would not be involved at all." http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/electoral-college.html
*The current population of the US is 325,082,166, all numbers would need to be adjusted upward.

If Electors in the EC were reflective of the population it would certainly be less problematic and would result in presidential elections more closely resembling the will of the US population, but would require significant increases on the very routine time intervals which is complicated and burdensome; it would require major overhauls. The US population is estimated to rise to over 390 million by 2030, so if we overhauled it today (made it reflective and proportionate) it would likely not be reflective or proportionate in just 14 years and would require another complete "over-haul"

As the US population increases we will continue to see presidents being elected less and less mirroring the popular vote and presidents elected with the popular vote occurring less and less (with the 'loser' winning higher and higher proportions of the popular vote). The electoral college was fairly true in 1911 .... and as each year passes and as the population grows it is less and less reflective of the US voting public.

Again, if you support a system that is not reflective of the will of the citizens of the US ... I can understand support of the EC in its current form.