The problem you identify isn't with the electoral college but with the centralisation into the federal government of states powers in a way that is directly against the federalist and Republican ideas of the constitution.
And even if it was true, who cares? The central thesis of the 18th century was that people would have more allegiance to their states rather than the national government, and that hasn't been true for over a hundred years.
The majority of the country elects the President, because the United States are composed of the several States (not the people thereof), and the states elect the President. Frankly, I wouldn't mind every state having an equal voice, rather than unfairly privileging populous states.
Majority in what way? Not necessarily a majority of the people.
> Frankly, I wouldn't mind every state having an equal voice, rather than unfairly privileging populous states.
More people live there, though. So those states represent the views of more people. Under your system, someone in South Dakota would have a 1/750,000th of a say in their state's choice, while someone in California would have a 1/36Mth of a say in their state's choice.
The people are irrelevant, because the United States is composed of the States, not of the people. The majority of the states, through their electors, elect the President.
> So those states represent the views of more people. Under your system, someone in South Dakota would have a 1/750,000th of a say in their state's choice, while someone in California would have a 1/36Mth of a say in their state's choice.
Why care about the number of people represented? California is free to petition the Congress to split into smaller, South-Dakota-sized states if it so wishes. More to the point, California and South Dakota are individual sovereign states which are each part of the United States. They are constitutional equals. It would be unfair to give California forty-eight times the voice of South Dakota.
Frankly, I think our Constitution has a good balance: the People are represented in the House; the States in the Senate (which is why direct election of Senators is a catastrophically disastrous mistake); and states determine how to choose their electors. I'm in favour of constitutional amendments revoking the 17th Amendment and mandating that state legislatures appoint senators & electors.
The whole problem is the breaking it up by states, because states are quite frankly not that relevant. No one has allegiances to states. States are subordinate entities, that pretty much subsist on the largesse of the federal government. They're basically counties.
The central thesis behind the electoral college simply didn't play out, and holding up today is simply necrocracy. There's a reason why no other government on Earth has one of these things.
Are you confusing the states with the people? The United States are composed of the several States, and the States elected Messrs. Bush & Trump in those years.
> No one has allegiances to states.
They ought to.
> States are subordinate entities, that pretty much subsist on the largesse of the federal government. They're basically counties.
No, states are the sovereign entities which constitute the United States. The people did not ratify the constitution; the states did. Misconceptions like yours are why we should repeal the 17th Amendment, replacing it with one mandating that legislatures appoint their federal senators. Frankly, I'd love to see legislatures appoint electors, too. The people have a voice in the House; having voices in the Senate and in the Executive is too much.
I think you mean like the UN, where countries vote not citizens from around the world. According to your logic, the people of China should be able to force you and all other people around the world to do anything and enforce any law that they wish.