[atmavatar]

Could you elaborate why it's more fair and democratic for a candidate losing the popular vote to win an election (e.g., 2000 and 2016)?

Additionally, why is it more fair for a voter in Wyoming to have 3x the electoral impact of a voter in California?

The latter is a particular problem borne from the fact that we've capped the size of the House at 435 in 1929, thus giving increasingly disproportionate power to low-population states in both the House and Electoral College as the difference in population between states continues to grow.

> but it certainly forces politicians to at least care what people in Iowa, Vermont, and Nevada have to say.

The problem is that it disincentivizes politicians to care about what people in deep blue or deep red states have to say, and there are many more of those than there are swing states. Both Democrat and Republican presidential candidates should have to campaign in all 50 states rather than a single-digit number of potential swing states.

[valval]

The word “fair” would need to be defined first. Direct democracy is not used anywhere in the world because it’s problematic. Me and my friend can’t vote to beat you up and take your money even though it’s two votes against one. That would be immoral.

Large cities grow their own cultures. People become alike in some aspects, and adopt similar ideologies. There’s no guarantee those people know what’s best for some village far away. There’s also no guarantee they wouldn’t vote to raid that village and put it to the torch, with 30 million votes against 2000.

I think it’s fair that sparsely populated areas get say in nationwide topics as well. When it comes to your longing for a system “more democratic”, well, the US is a constitutional republic and the founding fathers thought about this stuff long and hard.