Electoral College

The biggest example that supports the decision to change the electoral college is the election of 2000.
"In most years the system provokes little controversy: The winner of the popular vote usually wins the Electoral College vote too. But in 2000, George W. Bush won the presidency after losing the popular election by more than 500,000 votes. How? He garnered 271 electoral votes — one more than the 270 votes needed for a simple majority."

Now, I don't want to get into whether or not I believe that Bush is a good president or anything like that, but I have to say- I don't believe that he should have won the presidency this way. By the electors getting to cast their votes, which apparently have infinitely more power than the vote of the individual, completely silences the 500,000 people that didn't vote for Bush. What on Earth is supposed to entice the average American to vote if they feel that it's a moot point? It doesn't add up that there are commercials and other various modes of advertising pressuring us to "Vote or Die" (thanks, Paris!)and then have those votes cast aside by the electors.

Yes, the College provides us with a clear winner, and allows there to be a fair distribution of power between the states and feds, however, who do we think makes up the states's votes? THE PEOPLE DO. So why have them vote and have their voices "heard" if the Big Wigs of the states are actually those that count? Why don't we just shorten the process, save the candidates money on advertising and just have the electors vote on who they think would represent the individual state's needs/beliefs? That way, it's not directly up to the people anyway. The problem with that being that it would be like "allowing a blind man to preside over a “trial of colors.” " like George Mason said.

Also- with the California/Wyoming comparison, wouldn't it work the opposite way too? Essentially, the votes are divided such that the states with fewer people (Wyoming)have more influence with their votes (their electors do) than densely populated states (California). This is supposed to be proportional and prevent candidates from spending all of their time campaigning in the larger states. This is said to "give the little guy a voice", meaning that the people should want to vote since they carry so much weight. Wouldn't this also sort of discourage the larger states from voting, since their vote counts less? and maybe someone would vote for their candidate for them? food for thought