Well, yes I do, a lot in fact.
Your statement:
"It wasn't created out of wisdom.
It was a concession to the s***e states. What you say means it was giving in to them and giving them an advantage. And it was actually taking power from them. Esp the 3/5 compromise which was worked out as part of the debates about p**********l e******ns and power in Congress. It reduced their House members by quite a bit. Read a dictionary lately?
Read a book."

As I pointed out the e*******l college was to offset the huge populations of a few states and that the largest at the time was Virginia, a s***e state. #3 was also a s***e state, but after that it was Northern states, many of whom did have s***ery on a tiny scale but got rid of it fairly fast. That 50.2% of the total population in s***e states gave them no advantage in the House and even less so when the 3/5 compromise was factored in. It did not take long for them to be out populated overall by the free states as the majority of immigrants went to the industrializing North for jobs or out to the frontier for land. The poor/uneducated/unsk**led immigrants largely avoided the s***e states because the s***es held most of the jobs they were able to do.

The House districts are redrawn whenever we have a census so they will all represent equal voices. The Senate was designed in the early Republic to assure that important decisions included fair representation from all areas, not just the biggest states. However, it would not be hard to redistrict the Senate when we have a census. We could have 50 senators, but they would each represent areas of equal v**ers, today about 7 million per senator. This would still give all areas a fair say--New England equal to the South, and the Midwest equal to the Great Plains . Five or six states with sparse populations would have the same power as one or two populous ones.

There is no good argument for going against the principle of one-person/one-v**e, and the Federal courts already ruled out state senates that let sparse farming areas have more power than populous cities--they have to have about equal population for each senate seat. That still means that any law requires broad support around the state. Why should a v**e in Wyoming count five times as much as one in Texas or Florida? America has always had people who never actually liked the idea of other people having an equal say (Hamilton comes to mind, and favored only landowners v****g--a practice in the South even in 1960). People whose v**e counts extra are loathe to give it up to hoi polloi.

Surely it is not quite right that a candidate who got more v**es than any winner in the history of the nation (except one--Obama's first), and the biggest popular v**e majority in history (except Obama's first), lose to a minority that flipped the E*******l balance?

A different approach would be to let any city with a metro population equal to smaller states (say, the bottom 5 in population) could be given statehood. This would give them senate seats of their own, and most Americans now live in cities--underrepresented. This would in turn give them e*******l balance in the E*******l College as well, as these v**es add together House and Senate members for their representation.

Another reason for the E*******l College was to give Congress the choice of President when there is no strong national consensus, and that is what happened with Thomas Jefferson. However, I think that if this is done, it should be with the new Congress rather than the lame ducks--the new one would represent the freshest reflection of the people.

Jefferson himself believed the Constitution would be changed all the time (which is easier with just a few states), and in his Second Inaugural he said he would support any bill that helped the people, and would support an Amendment for that whenever required. He said it did not seem right to him that the nation should be ruled by dead men. He also boasted that he had paid off the entire national debt from the Revolution by selling real estate in the western territories, bought from the Indian nations at going prices (at that time they could take their money and move west--no great hardship).

Still another approach in favor of democracy would be to have each state divide their e*******l v**es in proportion to the v**es in their state, rather than winner takes all in that state. (Some states do this.)

Glad to hear you support eliminating the E*******l College.

Here's an alternative view:
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether, and if so, how, s***es would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five s***es as a person for this purpose. Its effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more e*******l v**es than if s***es had been ignored, but fewer than if s***es and free people had been counted equally, thus allowing the s***eholder interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1861.[1] The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787.[2]