The electoral college rewards the geographic location of voters and not the sizes of the populations. That's how a Republican President was elected twice in this century alone in spite of losing the popular vote.
So let's say a couple moves from Wyoming (3 EC votes) to California (55 EC votes). The EC votes don't change, pretty much no matter what. A result of the forty-year migration from Southern and Midwestern states for coastal states means that previously purple states are now red, and a small handful of purple/blue states are just really, really blue. And that migration has resulted in a large handful of states with very, very few people who have almost equal power to a handful of states with much larger populations.
This seems counter-intuitive when you remember that 55 is a whole lot bigger than 3, but that fact doesn't save the country from a minority of the population selecting its President.
Here's an interactive map showing the relative value of your vote if you lived in one state or another. If you're too busy to check it out, I'll give you the tl;dr version: the smaller the population of the state, the greater the value of your vote across the country as a whole. The more populous your state, the lesser the value of your vote across the country as a whole.
So the result is that if you're rural and white, the EC is what's keeping you in power, and little else except a slew of vote/voter suppression efforts.
There are many reasons to dislike the Electoral College: It gives a handful of states the lion’s share of campaign attention; it allows a candidate wit ...
www.slate.com
www.wnycstudios.org
Every time people talk about the EC all they talk about is comparing Wyoming to CA because that comparison is the only one you can really do to make the EC look bad. If you compare any of the rest the numbers really aren’t that far out of line especially not to get more than a shoulder shrug
