In the wake of Hillary Clinton's historic loss - including weeks of rioting, recount efforts which hilariously backfire, blaming everything under the sun (except Hillary herself), and even sending death threats to Electors (with even more backfiring hilarity) - liberals continue their infantile blame-game frenzy by flooding social media with calls to abolish the Electoral College. Of course, everyone else knows that they would be rallying to defend the Electoral College if it had defied the popular vote to install their beloved demagogue - same as they demanded that everyone "respect the outcome of the election" (then proceeded to throw all manner of temper-tantrums because it wasn't the outcome they wanted).
But here's 'the big secret' that liberals are afraid to mention amidst their ranting against the Electoral College:
Preservation of State Sovereignty
Few people know much about the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union which was ratified way back in 1776. (Does that year seem familiar?) One of the key issues - similar to the contemporary European Union - was that each of the colonies insisted upon retaining their individual sovereignty. No one today would expect France to surrender its national identity as part of joining the EU, yet the United States works so amazingly well that many today have forgotten (or never learned) that each and every State still retains much of its original sovereignty. (Did you know California, Wyoming, and every other State has its own Constitution?) The reason that the Articles of Confederation failed and was replaced with the Unites States Constitution was that the former had not granted the Federal Government quite enough power.
Anyone who has actually studied the founding of the United States - even as a lay person - clearly understands that the prime directive of the Continental Congress was to guarantee in perpetuity the preservation of States' rights. This tenet is a key reason as to why the United States Constitution remains the shortest of any major government in the world, as well as why it endures as the oldest of any major government in the world! As per the Constitution itself:
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...
AMENDMENT X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Every State shall have equal representation in the Senate...
ARTICLE I, SECTION 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
...and proportional representation in the House.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative.
And just to clarify on behalf of those who foolishly try to claim "The Electoral College is rooted in slavery!" allow me to clarify that point:
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Liberals, read that through again: "a Number of Electors equal to the...Number of Senators and Representatives" in Congress. Not one damned thing about slavery! The sole purpose of the Electoral College is to ensure that each and every State has the same amount of power in the Executive Branch (electing President and Vice-President) as it does in the Legislative Branch (passing laws via House and Senate).
But perhaps you mean to be arguing against the number of Representatives you have in the House? After all, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware (in addition to Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia) were the ones who pushed to have slaves counted toward their population in order to gain more power in the House of Representatives! Of course, these same States didn't want slaves counted as people for the purpose of taxation. The Three-Fifths Compromise held fast to "no taxation without representation" by counting a portion of slaves towards their States' population in regards to Representatives in the House AND the taxes they would be required to pay.
Of course, California and New York liberals fail to mention (or attempt to deny) that their beloved States entered the US as slave states! Liberals will also conveniently fail to mention that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly repealed the Three-Fifths Compromise in 1866 - it hasn't been relevant to the House of Representatives (or Electoral College) for 150 years!
The next most common argument touted by liberals concerns the supposed bias between a State's population and its number of Electors - yet another half-truth in sheeple's clothing. Addressing this point in its proper context requires evaluating the number of Representatives it has in the House in proportion to its actual population.
One of the original (and, as yet, unratified) Amendments to the US Constitution was the Congressional Apportionment Amendment. Amidst the formality and legalese of the Amendment itself and the debate surrounding it is a clear and distinct message - that the Founders wanted to preserve the voice of the population yet do so without overwhelming the voices of individual States. As America's population grew, so too would the number of people per Representative (30k, 40k, 50k, etc).
Initially (1789), there were 26 Senators and 65 Representatives - 2.5 Representatives per Senator. Just before the Civil War (1861), 68 Senators and 237 Representatives - 3.5 Representatives per Senator. Roughly a century ago (1911), the population growth was already getting out of hand with 391 Representatives but only 92 Senators - 4.25:1! In order to prevent the total derailment of the Founders' built-in safeguarding of State sovereignty, Congress passed the Apportionment Act of 1911 to forever cap the House at 435 members. (The additions of Alaska & Hawaii temporarily increased the House to 437 members, before dropping back down to 435.)
The precise apportionment of these 435 seats occurs on or before January 25th three years following each decennial census. The above table (from Wikipedia) lists each State's population relative to its number of Representatives and, as is readily apparent, the figures in no way conform to the victim narrative fallacy being perpetrated by liberals. If anything, compare Montana to Rhode Island - nearly identical populations yet Rhode Island has twice as many Representatives as Montana! And California (whose liberal urbanites have created the greatest uproar) is smack dab in the center, alongside bluest Connecticut and reddest Kansas.
It's downright laughable how quickly most liberal assertions disintegrate when exposed to even the most basic scrutiny. While there is indeed some degree of skewing between a State's population and its number of Representatives, the only actual 'bias' is that the bigger States - California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, etc - are clustered around the median while the less-populous States are skewed towards having the least Representation per population.
Change is the Only Constant
It should also be pointed out the demographic composition and political attitudes of the States are in a constant state of flux - in 1964, all but a few States voted Democrat; in the 1980s, most of the nation voted Republican. As populations migrate, some States gain additional Representatives (and corresponding Electoral Votes) while others lose them. But each and every State (from Alaska to Rhode Island, and from California to Wyoming) will always have its two Senators in addition to its Representatives to ensure that it has its rightful voice within the Legislative Branch of the United States.
And the Electoral College.
VINCIT OMNIA VERITAS ~ TRUTH CONQUERS ALL