Just seeing this @JVLast piece defending the #ElectoralCollege. He's right about its many shortcomings. But he defends it because, he says, it "attenuates tensions among different regions by giving sparsely populated states a voice." This is wrong. https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/god-save-the-electoral-college

To the contrary, the EC under the statewide winner-take-all rule doesn't help sparsely populated states. It helps battleground states. Candidates ignore all other states, and the voices of the smaller ones are drowned out by winner-take-all laws.

Also: @JVLast raises the specter of a multi-candidate free-for-all in a popular vote, with the "winner" getting just 30% of the vote. First, that doesn't happen right now in gubernatorial elections, which don't use an electoral college system.

But second, to the extent that a low-% winner would be a concern, we have great solutions on hand: primarily ranked-choice voting, which would ensure a winner with majority support while allowing voters to more accurately express their preferences.

I appreciate @JVLast's effort to make a nuanced case in favor of the EC, but his primary fears are pretty easily answered by existing facts on the ground.