Arguing over 1-2% of actual voters is such a waste of time.
This is SUCH an interesting point I just can't stop thinking about it.
So you're totally fine with the country electing a President who loses the election by 2%, as long as he wins the electoral college. Would you also be fine with electing someone who lost by 90%? At what point do you think the country's changing population distribution will warrant changing the electoral college?
If a 2% loss is fine, how about a 5% loss or a 10% loss or a 25% loss? Surely there comes a point when we would all recognize that an electoral system that habitually elected the minority candidate must be fundamentally flawed, right? In theory, it's people who are voting and the electoral college is supposed to just be a convenient way of counting up the people.
So as of today 40% of the most recent presidential elections have elected the candidate who did NOT get the most votes. What if it was the next five in a row? Would we, as a nation, complain if the minority candidate won in more than half of elections? How about more than 80% of elections? When do we decide it's broken? Shouldn't something as important as American democracy work more than 60% of the time?
Because I don't see this problem going away anytime soon. It appears to be fundamentally broken, and I'm just trying to identify some ground rules for what it would take to convince people that America's best interests are not being served here.