[atmavatar]

> The US constitution is working great. Democracy isn't necessarily good. If we had a national vote where 51% of the people voted to kill 49% of the people, that would be bad.

"Democracy is bad because majorities can vote for bad things" is hardly a meaningful argument on its own. How is the current system of minority rule via electors better? If we had an electoral vote where 22% of the people voted to kill 78% of the people[1], would that be better?

1. The current apportionment of electors is such that you can achieve 270 electoral votes with states accounting for roughly 43% of the population. Since nearly all states grant all electors to the candidate winning the popular vote within themselves, you only need roughly 22% of the overall US population to elect a president.

[ecshafer]

22% is unlikely. The electoral college, the senate, the house, the state legiatures for constitutional ammendments. These are multiple layers that are meant to act as a check against a popular mob in a heat of passion.

[SideQuark]

Trump got 77,302,580 votes. US population is slightly over 340,000,000. That's at best 22.7% of the US population voted for Trump.