It's so funny how people can post something acting as though they are sane and rational, and then finish their thought in a way that reveals they are fully radicalized.
It's no secret and it's a shared belief (shockingly, even among non-'radicalized' people, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_S...) that the electoral college is undemocratic, obsolete (quite stupid by today's standard), vulnerable to interference (like we saw in 2020 and we'll definitely see in 2024) and it led to the current SCOTUS anomaly. For a nation that prides itself with 'innovation', to never end up reforming its electoral process and amend the constitution is just mind boggling to me. The electoral college was supposed to protect the country against people like Trump. We all know how well that worked out for everyone. And we'll find out again in 2024, as fringe groups inside the republican party are quietly setting up their people in key places.
If your counterargument in favor of the electoral college is that 'the constitution says so', there are a lot of constitutional amendments which prove that it's possible 'it can no longer say so'.
As I understand it, this is incorrect. IIUC, the electoral college still exists in order for the mega-cities not to outvote the countryside every single time. Otherwise, it would be like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner; the cities would always vote for policies only good for cities, and completely ignore any bad effects on the countryside.
The three fifths compromise would have been difficult to work out if you didn't use an electoral system.
You don't have to agree with the electoral college's system to understand that if someone wins an election based on the rules defined up front, they have won the election, and that those that achieved other measures of electoral support in that election have lost, since those measures were not the goal of the candidate to achieve. To think that not only is this not the case, but that the election was "stolen", goes even beyond being radical, it's entirely irrational, as it would be if you said a baseball game was "stolen" by the team with the most runs but failed to secure the most hits. It's very likely that if that winning team knew that hits was the goal, and not runs, that they'd have won under those rules as well.