Sorry, but you keep making up your own false interpretations of what the founding fathers wanted, and what "We, the people" wanted. No problem, I'll keep correcting your errors.
Robert: The E*******l College was the method "The People" chose to elect the President to ensure that a few large population states could not over ride or nullify the wishes/interests of the people in the rest of the states.Wrong. The E*******l College was the method that anti-democratic elitists who did not trust "We, the people", who wrote the Constitution chose to prevent "We, the people" from directly electing the President, to ensure that a qualified person would be chosen for President and not a dangerous demagogue con man (like one malignant psychopathic narcissistic professional con man Donald Trump, for example) that the easily fooled common folk might fall prey to. Additionally, there was nothing in the writings of the founding fathers to back up your assertion that the founders were worried about "a few large population states over riding or nullifying the wishes/interests of the people in the rest of the states." You made that part up.
Robert: It isn't perfect, but it has worked so far.In fact, not only is it increasingly problematic and arbitrary - resulting in increasingly skewed results between the winner of the popular v**e vs the winner of the e*******l v**e over time, more importantly, it no longer works as the founders intended it to work - to keep a dangerous and unqualified candidate from obtaining the office, as the E*****rs no longer exercise their independent judgement, but simply rubber stamp the choice their state's popular v**ers choose. This rubber-stamp system, which increasingly imposes an arbitrary system of skewed results onto "we, the people", accomplishes neither the buffer/filter against an unqualified/dangerous demagogue that the founders intended, nor a fair democratic result that "We, the people" want.
Robert: And of course Popular V**e would not be perfect either. At present over half the population lives in just 9 states. Those nine by v****g together could control all p**********l e******ns. The residents of the other 41 states would just be out of luck and helpless.First of all, it is ridiculous to claim that "the residents of the other 41 states would just be out of luck and helpless." One person one v**e would mean that the residents of the other 41 states would have their v**es count exactly the same as the residents of the 9 most populated states. Either you believe in the popular v**e choosing the president, or you don't. Why even have a popular v**e if you don't believe in one-person-one-v**e?
Funny, only the Party which currently benefits from denying the will of "We, the people" in the more populated states, preventing them from having their v**es count as much as the folks in the smaller states, seems to think your scenario above would be a problem. To claim that peoples' v**es in the smaller, less densely populated states should count more than the v**es of the people in the more densely populated states is absurd and arbitrary. There is nothing inherently fair about this. Were the tables turned, and the Republicans who currently benefit from this arbitrary system, were instead the losers and it was the
other party who dominated in the smaller states and whose v**es counted more, these very same Republicans currently supporting this arbitrary system would be the first to scream,
"NOT FAIR!" and demand an immediate elimination of the E*******l College.
Sorry, but you keep making up your own false inter... (