If, as Electoral college fans tell us, it was created to stop the big states from “ruling” Why are electors based on population?

The Electoral college is a very fair system.

They aren't. If you actually understood the electoral college, you wouldn't have asked.

They are NOT all allocated by population. Every state gets two, just for being a state, and only the rest are based on population. In reality, it's done by giving each state the same number of electors as it has people in Congress - 2 senators plus however many congressmen it has in the House. And so there are 100 (number of senators) + 435 (number in the House) + 3 (for DC) = 538 electors.

And so the small states get a few more electors than they would have if it was just based on population, and that's the whole point of having the electoral college. In a federal country, states are important as well as people.

Your last sentence is so inanely fatuous it is not worthy of comment.

If you're going to criticise something, at least get your facts about it right or you just look stupid. This is what we call a "straw man" argument - you're shooting at a straw man, not the real one.

Whatever happened to one man, one vote. We do not need the Electoral college. Every other country determines the winner by who gets the most votes.

It was created to give every state some say in the election. Without it, whatever person won the election in California or New York would be the winner.

Great idea. If we divide the 535 Electors equally among the 50 states then Wyoming and Montana, among other small states will each have the same number of electors as California and New York have. That will absolutely keep the big states from ruling. Seriously though, your argument ignores the fact that every state gets at least one representative and 2 Senators regardless of population. Should that also be changed?

The Electoral College gives states the same proportional representation that they get in Congress; each state gets 2, plus additional ones based on the population.

I have not heard anybody saying the Senate should be abolished, which they should if they think the Electoral College is unfair. Just let the House of Representatives decide everything.

The reason people don't want the Senate abolished is the same reason they should not want the Electoral College abolished. It protects the states with lower populations, while still allowing for proportional representation.

It has other benefits. It makes election fraud at the national level almost impossible. If the election were strictly by popular vote, it would be easy; any votes stolen could affect the outcome, regardless of their location. A relatively small fraud campaign could swing the election. But with the Electoral College, a fraud campaign would have to be massive in most states. Much harder.

Besides, the Electoral College - like Congress itself - makes it necessary to consider the interests of every state in the Union - not just the ones with the big populations. Any state can be a swing state; they keep changing, depending on what is going on in the country.

A pure democracy, based solely on the number of votes, is like two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner.

The Electoral College and the US Congress both protect the lamb from being devoured. Otherwise, the more populous states could just raid the less populous states. You would have tyranny, not equality.

Did someone say big states? Not about that, never heard that one. Alaska is a big state with few people. Should their opinion, their vote have no value or more value? Or should we find a way to balance the value of different places with different needs. With whites being the majority and voting off simple popular vote wouldn't whites decide everything, wouldn't politicians only cater to whites for the easy win? Keep studying, set emotion aside and study.

The electoral college does both. It's based on population but effectively adds some weight to the voting power of states with lower populations. The purpose for that wasn't to "stop big states from ruling." The purpose for that was to ensure states that are predominantly agricultural would be heard and not always outvoted on issues important to their states.

The Founding Fathers saw that the security and stability of the country would largely depend on its bread basket, its being able to feed itself. The concern was that predominantly agricultural states with lower populations would be less inclined to join the Union or remain in the Union if they were always being outvoted by industrial states with their densely populated urban centers.

As such, the electoral college is based on population as each member of the House gets one vote in the electoral college, and the House is based entirely on population with each representative representing the same number of people nationwide, so a heavily populated state like California gets 53 representatives, so 53 votes in the electoral college, but a sparsely populated state like Montana only gets one. However, then the electoral college gives a boost to lower population states as each member of the Senate also gets a vote in the college, and each state, no matter how big or small, has two Senators. So that's how it's weighted -- every state gets an equal portion of votes in the electoral college based on population, but then every state gets two additional votes regardless of population.

Wrong. Electors are two for Senators and one each for Representatives. The Reps are loosely based on population. the system is very effective as it is. If we went by straight popular vote, New York and California would have elected Mrs. Clinton. What a disaster that would be.

that's where the Senate comes in.....

the point was to come up with the best-possible system via compromise, not the easiest way out to keep future generations of low-thinkers and short-attention-span kids unchallenged by critical thought...