not having a system in place that ensures that each state can have a say in the choices the collective makes is the main reason why Britain left the EU
if you don't have that system then farmers don't matter
because not a lot of people live where farmers do so why campaign to them when you can win through NYC and San Francisco
Actually no... It makes it so that smaller states matter more than big states, which is the exact opposite of what a good democracy is.
What you *want* is for the largest part of the population to be satisfied with the result, because remember, everyone is equal under the eyes of the law, and for everyones vote to actually count.
In the electoral college, in many instances (Around 7% of all elections), the minority vote wins. This means that the majority of people did not vote for the winner.
Also in the electoral college, not everyone's votes actually count. If you're in New York for example and you're a republican, your vote basically means nothing because New York is never going to go red. Your vote does not matter. Or if you're a democrat in Texas, your vote does not matter, because Texas will never go blue. Your vote does not matter. But in a popular vote, it does matter, because all that matters is the number of votes everybody gets.
Abolishing the electoral college would fix those major problems, and increase voter turnout in all states. That's again, a good thing, because the more people who have a say in the election the better.
You could also further improve it by putting into place a ranked voting system, which eliminates the spoiler effect that the FPTP voting system has and would encourage 3rd parties to rise up in their own parties without fear of siphoning off votes from other parties.
