So your example is right on target to show the need for a representative democracy. But where is the need for the electoral college?
Its foundation was based on the concept that local people would only vote for local candidates as it was impossible for one cadidate to present their views to all voters (back when this all started, it is just a little different today) and was a means of preventing one local with a large number of voters from constantly electing the "local hero".
Additionally, it was setup to try to protect us from political parties (that did not work) and it has been modified to a point where it now helps protect the two party system that we currently have - this is supported by statements from supporters of the Electoral College.
If we are truely a "Representative Democracy" then our representatives, including the President, should be elected by those they will be representing not by the electoral college.
Mike
It's the part of representative democracy where "winner take all" applies to the allocating of delegates and representatives that we should not dissolve. This preserves (somewhat) geographic political distinctions and representation thereof.
Example: There are surely some treehuggin', bleeding heart commie rat bastards in Kentucky and they are concentrated in Lexington, Louisville, and Frankfort near colleges and universities, however most of the state is good God fearin' redneck. As such this state should be represented by those beholden (theoretically) to the rednecks hereabouts for votes and not the pantywaist girlytypes in town. We don't want to proportion the block lest the useless cityfolk vote here gets combined with the useless cityfolk vote everywhere else to create a national representative power block of these no good critters when within most smaller geographic political boundaries (states) they are the minority. There is no homgenous "American" culture, much as "progressives" (socialists) would like us all to believe other than the hive dwellers.
Edit/Delete Message