An argument for the Electoral College

[Stargleamer]

6. In reality the popular vote caters to more different groups than the EC does

Diversity flocked more to the cities than to the rural areas, which were more homogenous. Just look at Hillary's popular vote win--which groups comprised that majority?? Now compare it with Trump's. Look at this:

https://www.facebook.com/TeganandSara/photos/a.389205624109.166758.29144989109/10154687786634110/?type=3

Now consider what groups are served by the popular vote. If you think well, Idahoans, Utahns, Alabamans aren't served by the popular vote then it think you are seeing more diversity than there actually is among where a person resides, and discounting/minimizing the diversity among urban dwellers. Also where have lesbians and gays flocked to? I venture a lot of them flocked to the cities and tended to vote for Hillary.

In short those who voted in the popular vote majority (whether in 2016 or 2000) tended to be a much more diverse group of people. So I don't think your analogy about carpenters, electrians, etc. holds. A Hillary win would have been more in accordance with more different groups of people than any EC victory by a Republican would be.

A Kerry win in Ohio in 2004 would have resulted in an EC win for Kerry while (most likely) losing the popular vote , and Kerry would have had a more diverse group of voters supporting him than Bush did. But it didn't go down that way, and I have my doubts that it actually could have.