system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The logic behind getting rid of the electoral college would apply equally to getting rid of the senate.

The argument that I hear for why the electoral college is bad is that it allows for situations where the president wins despite losing the popular vote. The argument tends to be that we are a democracy where each person should have equal voting power and equal representation but as it currently stands some people's votes count for more than others based on where they live.

Keeping aside whether or not I agree with the stance for eliminating the electoral college, I do think it's weirdly misplaced. The issue isn't the electoral college but is the fact that there's rounding errors in the House of Representatives and, far more importantly, that each state gets 2 senators regardless of their population. The rounding errors are minor and something I think everyone would be willing to live with, if only to _not_ bloat the House to obscene levels, but the senate is an egregious example of some people having more federal power than others based entirely on where they live.

Wyoming is the least populous state. California is the most populous state. When it comes to the electoral college Wyoming gets 3 votes for 577k people or 1 vote per 192k people. California gets 55 votes for 39.56 million people or 1 vote per 719k people. This is the extreme version of what people seem to argue about in regards to the electoral college. However it's so much worse when you look at the Senate. Wyoming gets 2 senate votes for 577k people, or 1 vote per 288k people. California gets 2 senate votes for 39.56 million people, or 1 vote per 19.78 million people. 

The views I have that I want contested are the following:

1. The logic is the same between the two institutions.
2. Excluding potentially partisan reasons, such as your political party being more likely to win the popular vote vs the electoral college, this perceived unfairness is the only reason the majority people want to eliminate the electoral college.
3. People who want to eliminate the electoral college but state they do not want to eliminate the senate are hypocrites or ignorant.
4. Any argument that the average informed citizen would recognize as a decent argument for keeping the senate would equally apply to keeping the electoral college.

Edit 1: I've conceded the point that people might view it an issue if they do not look at it institution by institution but instead look at the federal government as a whole to everyone during my first pass at replies. Since my view on that particular notion has already been changed, further comments will not be getting a delta if it relies on that! Thanks so much for the discussion so far!

Edit 2: I've probably burned a decent chunk of my "be unproductive at work" time so far. I'll be back at lunch or after work and keep answering things as I can! I love the discussion so far guys. After that I'll be periodically checking in here!
gpt
While the logic may be the same between the institutions - smaller states need to have a say in Federal matters - one can make an argument as to _how much_ say they should be allowed to have.  One can agree with putting their "thumb on the scale" and still feel that one should only be allowed "so many thumbs"

- The Senate is obviously weighted towards smaller states by design.

- The Reapportionment Act of 1929 capped the House at 435 members and guaranteed each state at least one House member to each state.  This _again_ favored smaller states, as small states like Wyoming or Montana would get a higher amount of representation, as you can't have less than one House rep regardless of population.

- The Electoral College, being simply the sum of the Senate and House reps, reinforces the smaller state advantage inherent in both the Senate and House.

So, in the three areas where we have Federal elections - Presidency, House and Senate - we give an advantage to smaller states in _each one_.  We put three "thumbs on the scale" and have no representative body that is truly decided by popular vote.

It is logical for someone to say, "Small states should have an advantage in _some_ institutions, but they shouldn't have an advantage in _every_ institution."  Eliminating the Electoral College and going with a straight popular vote would leave the advantage inherent in both chambers of Congress, yet eliminate the advantage in the Presidency, which some may feel is an acceptable re-balancing of power between state's rights and the popular will.