Politics: if the point of the electoral college is to offset the population advantage of states, why is it still based on population?

The Electoral College is an attempt to represent all the states in a presidential election. It is a set of 50 elections, all with the common currency of Electors to determine the winner of a presidential election. Populations must be taken into account, but it's done in Democratic elections in each state.

"Winner take all" is a combination of representing the will of the people while giving state representation too. It was a good compromise, just like a bicameral Congress was for representation of people and states.

States that move away from the "winner take all" allocation of Electors are hurting the state representation aspect of this. It moves away from taking a median cross-section of sentiments to the will of the large population centers, like how the city of Rome's opinion was one that mattered in the Roman Empire.

The point isn't to offset the population of big states. That was the point of the Senate. The Senate gives equal representation to every state regardless of size. The House of Representatives gives representation based on size. That was a compromise not only between Constitutional convention delegates from large and small states but also between delegates who were more in favor of democracy and those who were less (since Senators also serve longer terms and were initially appointed by their states). The electoral college votes were based on the size of the states' congressional delegations.

The purpose of the electoral college was to act as a check on democracy. Many of the founding fathers feared that the mass of the people might be too easily swayed by appeaks to emotion and not reason. The electoral college was supposed to avoid the driect election of a president by creating a body, which would theoretically be made up of a "better sort" of men, which would actually choose the president through rational deliberation. They also chose not to have the Congress choose the president, at least in normal circumstances, because they wanted to keep the branches of government independent.

I think we need to change that rule of 'winner take all' in the EC and base it on percentage of popular vote in each state. That way you will have a more accurate count of who voted for what and people in Every State will feel their vote 'counted' which is not the case in many states right now. It would also force candidates to campaign in Every State not just the 'swing' states.

Explain why there are 2 senators per state and a limit for 435 representatives. And, then figure out where the imbalance is in electoral college. You might consider that few governments allow for the direct election of the supreme leader. And, most of the countries that do, have a political party that selects the supreme leader for election by popular vote.

Wyoming, 500,000 people, 3 electoral votes. California with 40,000,000 people SHOULD get 240 electoral votes. It only gets ONE SIXTH of that, 55 votes

That would be a disaster, in my opinion. Flyover country would get us an idiot c0n every election.