5 times the electoral college has opposed the popular vote, sometimes by very tiny margins. Out of about 60. So maybe an exaggeration.

5 out of 60 is still almost 10%, so it's definitely a topic worth debate. The EC seems to have outlived it's original intent, so we should probably clarify it -- either formalize the process to remove the human uncertainties, or eliminate it altogether in favor of a national popular vote.

> The EC seems to have outlived it's original intent, so we should probably clarify it

Its original intent was to give disproportionate weight to lower-population states, which is still an intent that is very much alive, at least among those lower-population states. It hasn't outlived that intent, but that intent always was, and remains, an anti-democratic thing.

There are different ways to assign the vote disproportionately without the flaws of the electoral college. Many countries give disproportionate geographical representation -- for example, in Canada the small provinces have both more senators (who aren't even elected anyway) and more representatives (who are elected) per capita.

But the EC system seems specifically set up to allow for slow communications distances and no way to "check back" quickly with the sending jurisdiction. That specific need is long gone.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration. If it can happen then that’s the system. “Sure, a minority can elect our country’s leader. But it only happens sometimes.” Doesn’t that seem weird?

Maybe the connotation of “king” is a bit off, but the president has a huge amount of power and apparently the only check on him (impeachment) has the exact same vulnerabilities that his election has (concentration of power in low population states).

I just can’t imagine a group of intelligent people today starting from scratch and deciding this is what we should end up with.

> “Sure, a minority can elect our country’s leader. But it only happens sometimes.” Doesn’t that seem weird?

Q: Is it actually uncommon for a (motivated and/or vocal) minority to end up with [de facto] control over something?

To me, it feels like this kind of thing happens all the time :(

Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority”[0], it's well-argued.

[0] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

Iowa has this kind of primary system. Representatives from the local caucus go to regional and then state. With the same issues. Not all bad - if something changes between the early caucus and the final state convention the delegates can respond.

To be fair, it wasn't like they started from scratch back then either: there were slave states and free states, and something had to give.

Yeah, I don’t mean to rag on the founding fathers. I just find it ridiculous that we’re still dealing with these compromises from disputes 250 years later. That’s another way it’s like a monarchy. “Why is this our government?”. “Well, 250 years ago to avoid war and consolidate power, some agreements were made between landowners and here we are.”

Let us focus on how anti-democratic the Senate is then.

Of course one answer about that is that it was by design. But that design was, famously, a compromise, one that may not be necessary anymore.

50% of the past four presidents were elected while losing the popular vote.

Seems to me three of those have happening in the last 20 years is cause for some concern.