Why the electoral college sucks and how to fix it

1. The electoral college disproportionately favors small states: This is the 1st and most obvious effect. Residents in different states should not have ANY MORE voting power than those who live in other states.

People will often say "iT wAs DeSiGnEd To Be ThAt WaY" as if people from the 1780s
a. Had infallible opinions that should never change.
b. As if things from that same era haven't already been changed like their antiquated views on slavery.

Also, people will say, it protects from the tyranny of the majority and gives smaller states a voice.
WRONG. Nowadays, candidates just campaign in swing states (90% of campaigns are in those states).

And in that case, neither solid left or right regions have much attention paid to them. The electoral college favors winning large states with small margins which segues into my next point.

The electoral college already features a mini tyranny of the majority: By making the states winner takes all, whoever gets slightly more votes gets the whole area.

This makes states with less moderate affiliations far less important to win and just incentivizes dumping all resources into swing states, which is no better than the NPV and is just worse.

Plus, the US already uses majority rule at every other level, from gubernatorial elections to Senate and House of Representatives elections. And it even uses the popular vote at the state level but not at the national level which is totally illogical.

Also, tyranny of the majority isn't any worse than tyranny of the minority, it's better. The job of electing someone is to elect whoever represents the most people, it makes no sense to do it in any other way. Minorities can be just as corrupt and wrong (See Trump's election).

Also, saying that the popular vote will make people just campaign to big cities is wrong on so many levels. Only 10 cities have 1 million residents. The 100 most populous US cities don't even represent 20% of the population, and there are cities like Garland, Texas in that range.

Nobody would ever cater to Garland JUST to try and get the NPV. Even the 1000 most populous cities (Extends to cities with under 40,000 residents) still only represents 42% of the population and we're talking cities like Newark (Ohio), Woonsocket, Rhode Island and Delaware, Ohio.

So what solutions exist? The most obvious one is establishing an NPV but that requires 2/3 in both Houses and 75% of states (38/50) which WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

A way to reform the system involves splitting electoral votes (Ex. 60% of the PV in a state nets 60% of EV in that state, also includes rounding). This kills the "tYrRaNnY oF tHe MaJoRiTy" thing at the state level and deincentivizes just campaigning endlessly for small margins

Cont: in winner takes all swing states. This would've made Hillary win 259-253 in the 2016 election (Because lots of remaining votes went to 3rd party candidates) and it would've made a 259 tie with Bush and Gore (which in a fair world would be decided by the NPV).

And to be more exact with rounding, instead of 538 electors, just increase it by a factor of like 2, 5 or 10. Also, in this case, a ranked choice voting system should be there to help.

A better one would be a combination of either of the 1st 2 suggestions plus ranked choice which limits the power of the 2 party system.

Also, shut the fuck up about voter fraud, it doesn't happen to any meaningful extent. There were 31 reported cases out of over a billion votes in one study examining fraud found in some elections between 2000-2014.

Additionally, the EC reduces voter turnout in solid left or right states and electoral ties should be decided by the NPV.

Also, to close, if you don't hate it enough, the EC elected 2 of the 3 worst presidents (If not THE 2 WORST) since the Great Depression and arguably the 2 most stupid people to ever be president.