
This is the correct answer to OPs question. What’s the real, human, and arguably logical defense of a system that ignores the popular vote in a “democracy”.
The idea is that you have to weight the system to ensure leaders have to pay attention to everyone, not just focus on winning NYC and LA and maybe a couple other big cities, completely ignoring anyone who lives outside a densely populated area.
Source: raised by a conservative who believes this very thing. Not saying I agree personally but I definitely grew up hearing this idea.
While that’s true for the legislative branch, the executive is different, or at least it’s supposed to be. The point is to get the president to represent all Americans, not just those in cities. I’m not agreeing with the idea, I’m just trying to answer so OP can get some insight into the argument.
Personally I think the EC was a bad idea but so was the 17th amendment. Of course, without the 17th amendment there would never be a dem majority in the Senate so you win some you lose some I guess.