https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_federalism#Constitutional...
Citation needed. The electoral college does not represent the interests of the electorate more than a popular vote does.
We don't go ask, say, Catholics which presidential candidate they prefer, and then award the winner the entire Catholic vote (including those who have been disenfranchised from voting, or who didn't vote). Yet we do that with states.
As a case in point look at the state of Washington. Two counties comprise all aspects of the state's politics, due to their population size and density relative to the rest of the state, often in stark contrast to the rest of the state. The majority of the states residents are thus represented, but the majority of districts and communities comprising that state are not.
A district, like a religious orientation, is not a hive mind, where a minority of people who vote for the most popular candidate should be able to co-opt the voting power of the rest.
Under a popular vote, counties besides King and Snohomish would have representation, instead of being ammunition used by those two.
I disagree. A rural agricultural community has very real security and economic concerns very different from a high density urban community. Those feelings are very real. Under a purely popular vote those concerns are instantly and conveniently discarded. That concern is the principle benefit of representational government and that concern is essential.