Firstly, US presidential election results are largely determined by turnout and switching from an electoral college to a single, winner-take-all bloc wouldn't change that underlying reality.
Secondly, even if you accept that "most votes wins" produces representative election results, it turns out that there are all kinds of wacky situations that can emerge in seemingly simple voting systems based on that idea.
Finally, there's a very strong argument to be made that "most votes wins" results in significant minorites being perenially underrepresented, increasingly ignored, and then ultimately disenfranchised.
Please respond to actual comments rather than your vivid imagination.
I mean, seriously, try to find evidence of your response in my comment. Please, try your best. This is why there is no more "good faith."
What is your point exactly?
There's a sad irony in the fact that in reminding me to assume good faith you actually did the opposite - assumed I was attacking you rather than having just made a mistake. And now you're rudely suggesting that I lack elementary reading comprehension. Maybe in my current state, sure. Not generally.
Calm down and be kind. Golden rule and all that.
To be sure, it's silly to oppose the electoral college due to personal political leanings. But arguably, the president wouldn't wield so much power were she more representatively elected.
I guess my objection is just that there's a clear feedback loop in power structures, and better representation is one of many avenues available to slow that.