The problem is that I doubt the Democrats are going to want to change too drastically in order to gain more support, their main platform right now is that they're not Trump/Republicans.

I'm not sure why you would ever think that I support the Democrats.

Just because the electoral college is not a 100% democratic system doesn't mean that it's a bad system. Sure, I would like to have the system changed a bit such as winner of the state automatically receives 2 electoral votes (senators) with the rest divvied up proportionally (representatives). However, the electoral college was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. This is especially true when a large proportion of the population comes from urban areas that tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Voters in rural states such as Montana or the Dakotas have more "impact" in the general election, but it is so that their concerns aren't drowned out from sheer numbers.

And before you retort with "how about the tyranny of the minority!?", it is harder to win the electoral college if you don't get the majority or plurality of the popular vote. Yes, there have been a few presidents who won the electoral college without winning the popular vote, but it is not a common occurrence which would contradict the claim of "tyranny of the minority". And the presidents who won the general election without winning the popular vote did so because they appealed to enough groups of people rather than being over-reliant on one. For instance, Trump won over the working class as well as winning a higher proportion of the black, Hispanic, and Asian vote than Mitt Romney.

Google McMullen and Johnston. Trump would have won more states and larger margins without them 

A lot of his Portuguese population fled to Brazil during Franco's time, but I guess he prefered to play the smart-ass.

So pretty of you to attack my lack of geographical knowledge when you first ignored that A LOT of Porguese people fled to Brazil during Franco's time, that I'm brazilian and Spain and Portugal have had so many intermingle. And sure Portugal is such an advanced country and democracy right? But would you be happier if I had talked about Salazar? Sorry, but Franco was much more relevant.

Tyranny of the majority is a nonsensical idea. If it's what the majority wants, by definition isn't tyranny. Tyranny is to opress the people. If the people are in a majority agreement it isn't tyranny. It's a ridiculous concept.

The fact that a rule was created to devalue the vote of some is what makes it non-democratic. The essence of democracy is that everyone has an equal voice, no matter the gender and the race aslong as they are mature enough age wise to exert it. Equality is the essence of democracy. Egalite, fraternite, liberte.

How terrible is the idea, that since one party gets more votes in an area that area should be worth less? It's a corrupt way gain power. The will of the people is what democracy is. If you corrupt that with these ridiculous sub rules to influence the results, it's no longer democracy. 

What does that have to do with the topic? 

First, Portugal is a much older country than the US, and it had a revolution to throw out Salazar's regime. It then created one of the best democratic systems in the world. There's only things to be proud of.

Second, you mean YOUR population fled to Brazil. Cause that's what your population is, mixed with locals. Though again, i don't see what this has to do with anything.

And finally third, i call you on your BS. Portugal was not an enemy of Spain. You talk about this immigration wave like it was gigantic, but in truth it hardly even registers in history books (and probably had more to do with WW2). I am pretty sure it doesn't compare to the immigration we see in the opposite direction these days.

So killing the Jews in German wasn't a tyranny against the minorities just because the majority accepted it? Coooool man. Having a equal voice is what made the electoral system, so that the concerns of minorities get equal opportunity to be heard.

1 - Sure portugal is much older, have made a lot of colonization and exploration, made a lot of war, a lot of mistakes... Salazar dictatorship didn't end until the end of the 70's... while USA "not democratic" have been running fine for over 200 years.

2 - Nope, I'm not descendant of Portuguese, and the Portuguese in question fled in the last century so not that much mixed as the ones you are implying from the colonization. That have to do with you demonizing USA democracy while Portugal have a child democracy compared to centuries of non-democracy. But if you so much want to know my ascendancy I'm 3/4 from ex-slaves (probably with some unknown portuguese and spanish blood in between) and 1/4 Italian.

3 - Call BS all you want, Portugal during the last 500 years have had several conflicts and antagonism with Spain. It may not register in your books, but in Brazil the wave of immigrants during Salazar and Franco regimes was quite expressive. I inclusively have a lot of friends of recent portuguese heritage.

First, your example is ridiculous and doesn't even warrant a reply cause it's not even closely related.

In democracy, all voters get representatives in the assembly, including minorities. The president is their representative in the world and its chosen by majority.

I'm not gonna continue the other topic. It's off topic and it's just you trying to throw personal attacks at my valid criticism. But, i will say this, the US is a flawed democracy as it's catalogued today. It was never a democracy. It was and is a Republic.

I shall quote you them "Tyranny of the majority is a nonsensical idea. If it's what the majority wants, by definition isn't tyranny. Tyranny is to opress the people. If the people are in a majority agreement it isn't tyranny. It's a ridiculous concept." Now tell me that isn't what you said.... and the concept is the same, if the majority have agreed for you it isn't tyranny.

I know what a democracy is. USA doesn't say it is a democracy, I have already told you that. They are a constitutional republic.

Funny that you was the one throwing personnal attacks and now pretend to be attacked.

If you're refuting the idea of tyranny of the majority through pedantic semantics, then you don't have an argument to begin with. Okay, so what if I change it to the technically correct term, ochlocracy of the majority? How about you use that semantics argument again and see what happens.

50.1% is technically a majority and what the 50.1% wants may not be best for the other 49.9%. In fact, the majority may work to harm the minority which would lead to an unstable society and government. This is especially true if the majority shifts frequently. In addition, arguments against an outright democracy are valid as there are concerns of people voting along collectivist lines. The reason why voters from rural states have a higher proportion of "voting power" is because it prevents urban voters from smothering them via large numbers. A democracy also allows the majority ethnic group to throw its weight around minority ethnic groups whereas it is more difficult in a republic system. In addition, democracy only considers the equality of voice into consideration, but not the collective intelligence of mass into consideration. The disregard of the collective intelligence can lead to detrimental effects such as the religious fundamentalism in Pakistan or the sterilization of women with so-called 'mental defects' or of 'mixed race' in Sweden during the 1900s. I mean, feel free to repeat that slogan, but if you think that's viable substitute for a valid argument, meh.

All I am seeing from your arguments is you explain why you personally prefer democracy. However, you have not adequately explained why democracy is a better system than a republic. For example, I already explained why rural states in the US have proportionally higher voting power, but from you, it's just "No, it's bad! It's corrupt! It's not democracy, therefore it's bad!"