[Terrario]

Your argument doesn’t follow. It sounds like you have a problem with the winner takes all system in us elections and not the electorate. Conservative voices in Cali and Liberal voices in Texas would be more relevant in a proportional system and not a winner takes all. These would be particularly relevant for states with split populations.

> No places should control an election. People should.

You say this but you dont mean it. In practice, removing the electoral college today would guarantee that certain places (coastal/densely urbanized states) control the election.

Should a Taiwan be able to dictate the laws and policies of a Tibet just because they have a larger population? The reason there are borders (in theory at least) is for different communities with different interest to have certain autonomy to choose their own destinies. It was part of the “deal” when the union was made because of this. If you want to remove the electoral college, then there should be a painless and democratic way for states to secede.

There are very few countries as large as the US, this circumstance is not shared by many countries. We should have a proportional system and then there wouldn’t be much of a need for an electorate AFAIK.

[yongjik]

> removing the electoral college today would guarantee that certain places (coastal/densely urbanized states) control the election.

You're still arguing in terms of places. Coastal urbanized states will "control the election" only in the sense that they have the majority of population and their average preference will have greater influence than the rest, when you average the whole area. In other words, they will control the election in the same way "people living to the south of Minneapolis" or "people who ordered Chinese food in the past year" will control the election.