Jester,

All too true. Nailed, I'm afraid. I think some of the 'positive' light Trump is being cast in seems to be the result that everyone is sucking up to him, because, well, as you said - he's King. Lot of important people being called into the royal court at Trump tower, and acting humble, wishing to share the crumbs of that power, and everyone who called him a scumbag now think he's a skilled and benign figure. No ones talking about his 'shoot from the hip' erractic style, because he hasn't started a nuclear war with Iran - yet. 

Enough of that. The electoral college system was set up by the founding fathers - some of the richest men in America, all large landholders (including farmland), and one can make the argument (as James Beard did in the 1920's, to a lot of hell for telling a different story than George Washinton chopping down a cherry tree, got confronted about it, and said famously, "I cannot tell a lie") copping to the 'crime'. One can see them as the 'owners of production' of their time. And their fear was, that direct elections might pose a challenge to this priviledged positions and monetary interests. So, under the guise of having a 'safeguard' against a population that might make 'unwise' decisions, the vote of each state generated members of the 'electoral college', that could overturn an 'unwise' decision by the people, if such circumstances came to pass. (Well, that sure didn't work in Trump's case - but at first there were some futile public pleas for electoral college members to not vote for Trump. And Jill Stein's 'recount' demands have everything to do with changing who gets to vote in the electoral college.)

So, what was designed as a way to protect the voting public from making bad decisions, really has a least one other agenda of not rocking the boat for the rich. At least that's what I remember from my American History class in high school. And yes, for whatever reason, the votes of states with higher populations got more electoral college votes. (The density of local populations leading to some 400+ members of the House of Representatives, I suppose as  a way to somewhat 'balance' against the fact that each state gets two Senators, regardless of population. (not to mention that the South kept its slave practices in effect - by counting each black slave as representing 3/5th of a vote - enough to vanquish abolitionist demands.)

A long-winded way to say you're absolutely right - the electoral college is outdated and sucks. One person, one vote. Should be simple, right? Your system of a parlimentary political power is much closer to that. Perhaps we ought to notfiy England that we've changed our minds - we'd like to apply to be their colony again.