It was actually specifically to protect people living in less populated areas. Population in the US has always been sharply divided. The system ensures no larger state rules over the smaller one, otherwise, it'd be less "US Presidential Election 2016" and more "California vs Texas"... 

You literally trashed all Latinos and Blacks in the US. You do realize they are minorities right? This system wasn't conceived for no good reason. Also, more Latinos voted for Trump than they did for Mitt Romney (for one, Trump won Florida's popular vote). The only reason Hillary has an advantage was because of bloody California. Considering California works as if they were their own country, thinking they should decide the election might be the most ridiculous, over the top statement I've ever heard. 

Also, the majority wasn't always better. The majority of people in Germany liked Hitler at the time, look how that panned out... 

If I wanted to tell you how it works, well, things might only be fair if you tell 33 percent of the American urban population to leave the country. Then we'd have an equal proportion of blue and red voters, then whoever yields loses. Otherwise, as I said, there's no reason for the GOP to exist. Trump did win the popular vote in MOST states. It only happens there are a handful whose population has the weight of dozens of states and renders this win pointless. Californians shouldn't decide for the rest of Americans who don't have the advantages they have. 

The special ones shouldn't call the shots, but people from across the country should have their say on who rules. If most of the country's states, rather than the people, choose their leader, you know most of the country will be represented, rather than a state with overcrowding issues. 

By the way, Trump was aware of this. He campaigned with the electoral college in mind, not for the popular vote. The fact he dyed blue states red alone seems like a hint he did pack more firepower than Hillary did, but not in the "fortress states" of Hillary's firewall. 

You just stated it was mainly favored by smaller states. Urban and rural have nothing to do with this. You only favor the system because it still gives republicans a chance for presidency. Each vote needs to be at least true proportional represented in the electoral college if it is to still exist. Throw out the electors and just let the states vote be divided proportionally.

So now that we agree that the EC is not working as intended (disenfranchisement), how about we talk about solutions?

Assigning each state ONE elector might be more favorable (or it might actually make things worse). 

To be honest, a parliamentary system might work more favorably than Presidential democracy mainly thanks to the ability of people to vote for lower profile figures with no power who will be unable to mass market their policies. We will then only have people in charge who obtained the vote unanonimously because MPs believe X candidate was the best choice for president.

It's working as intended. Otherwise, the entire political system was broken and we have to trash the parties and start with even more political forces in the fray... 

Republic: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

So what is the USA?
Last I heard we were a Republic.

Here is what is said in the pledge of allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

Trump got elected president. Get over it.

Long-term, there should be some reforms to the electoral college. Each congressional district won by the candidate should give you 1 EC vote, and winning popular vote would give you the remaining 2 EC votes in each state.

@Shadow. I'm just going to keep this as concisely, as possible.

Not to say you're wrong on voters in Wyoming and Vermont having 4x the voting power than those in Cali or Texas, but I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. A peer-reviewed study perhaps? Thanks. I think you make some good points. However, you have to take into account the different demographics of each state and those demographics are not equally distributed. A direct democracy will give certain minority opinions the shaft because the representation will not be there. You make good points on the protection of minority opinions from government oppression, but what about the outreach?

The thesis of your second paragraph is flawed in the implication that swing voters are monolithic. The swing voter can represent a variety of demographics and that plays an important role. The voters in the swing states tend to change in opinion more often than those in solid blue/red states which leads to my next point: the number of solid Democrat and solid Republican voters aren't equal. A direct democracy would work if distribution of Democrat, Republican, and unaffiliated voters were evenly distributed. However, such an ideal situation is impossible.

For your rebuttal on my third point, are you looking a population or voterbase? I'm asking this question because those two things are very different from each other. Also, there are significantly more than just five major cities in the US. You left out Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta, Boston, Seattle, Denver, Portland, so forth and so forth. You make a good point on that urban voters aren't a monolith, but I think we can both agree that in general, urban voters tend to lean towards the left.

Anyways, I greatly appreciate your response. Thank you for approaching in a far more mature manner than... eh, I'll just leave it there

Here's a more concise version of your first paragraph

Sargon's Law - Whenever an ideologue makes a character judgement about someone they are debating with, that character judgement is usually true about themselves.

It is not: the fundamental objective of the electoral college is to ensure that no voters are disenfranchised, and that is exactly what is happening now. Whether it be rural voters, urban voters, big states, small states, etc., the intent is to ensure that the people are represented by their government. The current popular/electoral disparity (2.5-3M votes more for Clinton) is an emergent phenomenon. However, the story not being told is that the lead (if every vote counted) would likely be far greater. The 3 largest (by population), non-swing states (CA, TX, and NY: 38M, 26M, and 20M) voted at much lower rates than the national average (2%, 6%, and 5%), but the splits were pronounced (62/33, 43/53, and 59/37: +29, -10, and +22). If one only brought those states up to the national average, Clinton's lead would increase by a minimum of ~120K votes. If they voted at the same rate as Florida, that number balloons to 500,000, and Florida trailed well behind MN, NH, and CO. 

TL;DR:

Trump won, fair and square. It's time to look into the future and not cry about what shoulda/coulda/woulda happened.

That's exactly how it's setup now.......

Electoral votes are setup by population. More population = more votes.