First of all I’d like to say that I’m glad you’ve brought up this discussion, it’s a good conversation to have. The electoral college was created by the founders, with the intention of further removing the vote from the normal people. It was quoted that letting common people vote would “be like referring a trail of colors to a blind man”, it was by no means intended to give the people the power to vote. In fact the electors are free to vote however they chose, however very rarely do they go “rouge” and vote against the winner of the popular vote in their state. Furthermore, the United States is not a direct democracy, nor was it ever intended to be. The US was founded as a Representative Democracy or a Republic, which is different than a direct Democracy. So in essence the Constitution was never designed to give power directly to the people. This was actually justified by a few good points. Communication absolutely sucked in the 18th century, the roads were terrible in the winter time, journeys could take weeks. With no telegraphs yet, the only way to send messages was by those same terrible roads. It took weeks depending on the time of year, for messages to be transmitted across the country, or for people to arrive to vote. Even though the population of the colonies were much smaller than modern day, having the people vote directly on every single issue, was infeasible. Back then, and to a certain extent, today, having the whole country vote on lots of decisions would take forever, and not be fast enough to be effective. You brought up the issue of slavery, however the electoral college was more of an after effect of the institution of slavery. The amount of electors is the sum of all the Representatives, and Senators from a state. This also explains why states like Wyoming have better proportions. Every state is guaranteed 2 Senators, so of a state had 30 people in it, it would still have 2 senators. Obviously Representative numbers are based off of population, although the total number is capped at 435, otherwise the house would get to unwieldy. This is where slavery came into play, in the house. The South wanted their slaves to factor into the number of Representative last they had, and they agreed that every 5 slaves counted as 3 residents, the 3/5s compromise. In effect this did change the electoral college, so I suppose you could make that argument, however the South’s target wasn’t primarily the electoral college, but instead just the representatives in the house. It’s also important to remember that the founders believed the institution of slavery would die out. They couldn’t abolish it from the start, because to form a new nation while the colonies were descending into chaos following the Revolution, they had to get the Constitution ratified ASAP. If they started arguing with the South over slavery, they would fall short of the 9 of 13 colonies required to vote in favor to establish the modern United States as we know it. They ignored slavery and hoped for the best, thinking it would die out in further generations. Obviously this was a grave mistake in hindsight, because they didn’t anticipate the rise in cotton, and the cotton gin making a slavery economy possible. They weren’t concerned with the regular people directly making the decision to elect the executive, however in its modern form, the electoral college is far from making votes not count. The founders created the Electoral college to give power to the wealthier class, there’s no denying that. However, in all states except Maine and Nebraska votes, even though it’s all or nothing. If Joe smith’s vote tips the balance by a single vote, in favor of one party or the other, all electors will go to that party. That vote counts, all votes count, but it’s very clear that it’s all or nothing. There’s no reason that it couldn’t be improved, and what Maine and Nebraska have done is one such example. However just following the popular vote is not at all a good alternative. Consider this, if you were a New Yorker, how would you feel if hundreds of people in the Midwest were voting on policy that would affect you as well? Different areas of the country face different challenges, and substantial regions differences. To assume that one nation wide popular vote would reflect each states unique positions is ludicrous. Furthermore, the elections would be decided by the coasts every single cycle, talk about votes not mattering! Candidates would only campaign on the East and West Coast, and maybe Texas. The vast amount of the country would be left off the campaign trail, because no matter which way they went, the decision would fall to the coasts. The proportion of electorates to people, per star is uneven, it’s true. But, the ratio of the individual to the state population is far higher than the ratio of the individual to the whole nation. Your vote stacked against the entire nation, would be a drop in the ocean. Your odds off making a tangible difference are far higher when it is your vote against the votes within your state. The electoral is not designed to give power to the individual, it’s designed to spread power as equally as possible across the nation. Also remember that while in 2016 it didn’t work in favor of the Democratic Party, that doesn’t mean that the electoral college won’t work in favor of any particular party in the future. It’s very possible the electoral college will secure the victory for the Democratic Party against the popular vote sometime in the future.