> Both parties win with it

As far as I can tell from Wikipedia, only five elections have ever been won by someone lacking a plurality of the popular vote. Three of those cases happened before 1900. If we look only at the more modern examples, the Republicans have won the presidency but lost the popular vote twice (2016 and 2000) and the Democrats have never done this. In fact, this is a true statement over all of time, but once you get back more then a century the political parties are so different as to make the comparison meaningless.

That is to say: the Democrats have never had a presidential election that they won without winning the popular vote. I do not love the two party system either, but in this case it doesn't feel fair to say that both parties are currently equally benefitting from the Electoral College.

Yea, and that's not a statistical fluke, either. So long as the political allegiances are close to what they are today, a Democrat will never win without the popular vote. Via our electoral college system, a vote in a lower-populace state will have more power. There's a lot of low populace flyover states that consistently vote Republican. So a Republican winning the popular vote almost automatically leads to them winning the electoral college.

Our electoral college and Senate system is designed to occasionally let the minority get stuff they want. The coastal cities have all the money and all of the media, they aren't hurting for power. The slight tip to the "flyover" states is an attempt to balance the mega-steamroller of coastal wealth and power.

The two party system moves slowly which at times like this looks like a feature to me. In a parliamentary system it is easier for extreme views to advance their agenda.

This is probably the one big upside to our system being glacial. I am glad Obama couldn't do more than he did, and the damage Trump could do with less controls is terrifying.