Minority opinions need to be protected and protection of those positions does not equate to tyranny of the minority. The majority opinion is not necessarily the 'right' or more meritable position. Your argument is ultimately an ad populum slippery slope double special. Otherwise, there will be mob rule. Past presidents in the US have won both the electoral college and popular vote, and won the electoral college, but not the popular vote. The electoral college forces candidates to listen and appeal to different demographics of the US. If the US was run by a direct democracy, those candidates would only campaign in California, New York City, Philadelphia, and *insert any other major city*. The needs of certain demographics, especially those from rural areas, will be kicked to the curb because those people will just be seen as mere scraps.

TL;DR - In a constitutional republic, both the majority and minority opinions can be addressed. In a direct democracy, only the majority opinion will be addressed. The president needs to represent the people, not the majority.

I disagree vehemently. Electoral college protects the country from turning into a place that only caters to 5 metropolitan areas and doesn't care at all for anyone else outside those areas.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, and should remain so. We are, and never have meant to be, a pure democracy.

It won't cater to 5 metropolitan areas. It would cater to the whole country. You can't tell me there isn't republicans in those cities. Just the same as you can't tell me there's no democrats in all those red states. Most people don't even bother to vote anymore because they know their votes mean nothing. Abolishing the college would bring real validity back to everyone instead of a few dozen guys who may or may not listen to the will of their people. Let the people decide. If it is abolished the first thing that happens is that in the big cities there will be more republican voices crying out. There will be more democrat voices in the republican areas too. Interest will return to politics and we will finally be a real democracy instead of this farce.

False. With 5 metropolitan areas, you can effectively win the popular vote. You can completely ignore the rest of the country and focus on LA, NY, Chicago, Philly, and DAL/HOU. With that, there are 60 million people in those areas alone. Why would any politician ever visit Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, or Colorado again? They and everyone living there would be reduced to irrelevance.

The idea that completely open democracy would give everyone a voice is a farce. Electoral college was created so that the little guy (i.e. everything between the East and West coasts) couldn't be completely ignored. It attachs value to areas that people wouldn't care about otherwise.

When the Electoral College was made California wasn't around. Same with every state outside of the colonies. I doubt the founding fathers thought this far ahead. The electoral college was useful back in the day to appease the slave states but those days are over. Voter apathy is at an all time high. People already don't care because they know their votes mean nothing and have meant nothing for decades. State governments are to give the little guy a voice. Its why congress and the senate exist. You act like it would be anarchy but it would be far from it.

"What do you think would be the best outcome for the US Electoral College?"

That they die a slow and painful death, and that the US finally have a Universal suffrage and becomes a democracy

Isn't this the system that allowed for Trump to win?

Didn't Hillary Clinton actually beat him in vote count, but then the electoral college thing decided to vote Trump in instead? Even though he lost with fewer votes?

Some of you keep talking that the electoral college was setup to protect rural voters from city voters... It was actually the opposite. It was to protect city people from rural people. They were afraid the dumb, uninformed, and misinformed masses might elect someone not qualified. Also, there was more people living in rural USA than city centers. This was the case till probably about the mid 1900s or so. Now let me see you spin history.

What an absolute joke! So, you should go with the opinion of the minorities eh? Well... i guess you should start asking your population minorities like latinos what to do now (and all those that Trump wants to deport aswell). Because this logic is hysterical! You're applying the tyranny of the majority eh?!

Btw no opinion is necessarely the best. But the opinion with the most backing should serve as the basis one you go with. Thats why you go with the majority, becaue its representative of more people.

Lol at mob rule. Of course, only the special ones should call the shots. Ah right... that isn't democracy though. Leaders of the free world... LOL! You are discriminating people and quite honestly, it's disgusting.

And tell you what... when 1 person = 1 vote, you also have to appeal to every demographic! How do you think democracies work? Better than the USA that's how! Cause theres none of this travesty where people win without getting the most votes.

Yeah, because for every Billy Joe, there are 10 Wills. In other words, the power was only enough to counter the numerical advantage that urban residents will always have. This does seem fair. 

Because if it wasn't this way, Donald then was right. He'd have campaigned in California and shifted some votes to his favor. If this wasn't the case, then California might have decided every election even though the state's dyed with blue. In other words, GOP might as well disband itself, because as long as California was a thing, the GOP will never win an election. 

Think of the system the EU has and what might occur with Russia on board. They have more people than all other European countries and they'd override any vote from the other countries. Same thing with California. They pack the weight of half the country on their own, so their power must be limited in some way. One person = One vote works only when the ideological divide between city and the country isn't as stark as it's in America. Think of this as the cities always voting one way and the countryside voting the other and then a few regions swinging back and forth and deciding the election. Since cities always vote democrat and the majority of the US population lives in cities, there will be no democracy. Cities don't change the way they do in Europe. A bipartisan party system limits your choices to center right and left and no city dwellers vote GOP unless something unusual has happened. 

80 percent of the US was urbanized as of the last census. At least 60 percent live in blue states. How the hell will the party of the countryside stand a chance? 

Long story short, this was fair for the simple reason that if it were down to votes only, people on the countryside will never see their candidate of choice win (or will do rarely) and their problems will be seen as less important than those of the cities where the majority of the population lives. 

To be honest with you, Donald's brash and loud, but he's not crooked. Hillary was. No person who insists their country should occupy a special role in world geopolitics should be given the right to rule. We're equal IN THE WORLD and fairness between two different demographics must be enforced when otherwise the demographic loses every single time. 

Source: The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787. Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections.

Or as I like to call it... The US doesn't work like a country, it works like a group of countries with one representative.