Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Should The US Abolish The Electoral College?
Last night as votes were still being counted, statistician and editor-in-chief for FiveThirtyEight Nate Silver pointed out that while Donald Trump has been elected president of the United States, "it's possible, perhaps even likely, that [Hillary Clinton] will eventually win the popular vote as more votes come in from California." We now know that she has indeed won the popular vote by a slim margin. American journalist Carl Bialik adds via Silver's blog: Hillary Clinton could still conceivably win the election -- or she could lose the national popular vote. But since both outcomes look unlikely, we should start preparing ourselves for the possibility of the second split between the national popular vote and the electoral vote in the last five presidential elections. A coalition of 11 sates with 165 electoral votes between them has agreed to an interstate compact that, once signed by states with a combined 270 or more electoral votes, would bind their electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote -- in effect ending the Electoral College. New York just joined this week. It wasn't enough to affect this election, but maybe today's result will spur more states to join. The results of this election echo the 2000 results, where Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote, but George W. Bush won the White House. It brings into question whether or not the Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote. As a refresher, the Electoral College is comprised of electors that cast their votes for president. Each state has a set number of electors that is based on the state's population -- the candidate who wins the state's popular vote gets those electors. Technically, on Election Day, the American people are electing the electors who elect the president. The New York Times has a lengthy article describing how the Electoral College works, which you can view here.
The operators of /. are unhappy about the results of the election, so the system is broken.
New York and California do not get to dictate who is president of the entire country.
We are the United States.
A republic. And as such, the votes need to be weighted to protect the rights of the states and the people in them.
Mob rule is the worst form of government.
Work Safe Porn
It's funny how these conversations always take place after the Democrat loses.
In 2000, the conventional wisdom was that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore would win the electoral college so there was article after article by liberals in the summer of 2000 on why the electoral college would matter. Google it.
The electoral college prevents politicians for completely ignoring 90% of the country and focusing only on the few really big cities. It also prevents voter fraud happening in one area affecting the entire election because it limits the damage done by voter fraud.
The electoral college idea was genius and there is a reason why the country is not a democracy and why we don't elect presidents via popular vote.
If State A has the worst voter fraud in the country, then the effects of said fraud are limited within their borders. If there is no electoral college, then the effects of fraudulent votes in State A for Candidate X is that they will now start cancelling out votes for Candidate Y in other states. LBJ would have loved nothing more than to get rid of the electoral college. Look at Virginia allowing felons to vote. Getting rid of the electoral college is a fool's errand.
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." - 2012
You don't even have to guess who tweeted that right?
- sigs are for wimps.
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy
The STATES elect the president, not the populace. In the early days it was the state legislatures that elected the Electors, who went to Washington to vote for president. Along the way the state Electors were changed to being voted on by the people. The president has never been elected by popular vote. If you want to change that then you change the original intent of the Constitution. Not saying that is a bad idea, just that it all makes sense if you understand it.
The operators of /. are unhappy about the results of the election, so the system is broken.
Indeed.
The Democrats moved $60 mil from down-ballot elections to Hillary to torpedo Bernie(*), gave the media questions to grill trump, got debate questions ahead of time, got to vet media articles before they were published, hired protestors to shut down a rally and start fights, colluded with PACs, published oversampled and biased polls, tried to frame Julian Assange.
The electoral college is unfair!!
(*) Are the democrats bemoaning that R's control both houses? Now we know why!
You're assuming he's speaking English. He's speaking Hipsterish.
Gerrymandering = anything to do with politics he doesn't understand.
Ponzi Scheme = anything to do with finance he doesn't understand.
Prole box = any computer that isn't his mom's macbook.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
California has approx 574,000 voters per electoral vote. Contrast that to Wyoming with 142,000 voters per electoral vote. (This is because each state gets a minimum number of electoral votes.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
How in the world is that fair? Are we not giving voters in some states more power to elect the President than others?
The electoral college is there for a reason and serves a purpose.
Could it be tweaked? Sure, I would like to see all the states' electoral votes be proportioned to the candidates by the popular vote within each state.
But really it is there for a REASON. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States.
The voting set up in the college, gives more equal proportional voice to all states based on population. If this were only the popular vote nationally, we'd forever have policy and presidents dictated based on 3 or so states, most on either coast with more extreme views and vast different needs from those other states between them.
The states are the unit of power in the US. A citizen in Maine has vastly different needs often, than someone in Wyoming, than in Louisiana, than northern NY.
Each of these states needs to have voice...hell, even with the electoral college, you have a lot of fly over states. It was shown last night, that maybe politicians should NOT take some of these states for granted (Hello W, where Hillary never set foot again during general election).
But like I said, I do with it wasn't winner take all in each state for their electoral votes. HOWEVER, that decision is up to the states themselves.
It is great that most power does reside in each state to make decisions just like this. The state is more answerable to its own citizens, and one size Federal does not fit all.
The nice thing with such difference in the states is, if you don't like the laws and culture of one state, you are free to move to another state that more fits your views and lifestyle.
I don't like that potentially voters in the Electoral College could vote how they want instead of how their state laws say....but again, I like the principal of the EC, maybe just tweak the rules a little.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The popular vote is not a mathematical fallacy, it's the simple sum of all of the people who voted. One Person, One Vote is fundamental to democracy and would be best enacted by simply counting the popular vote rather than having a fiction that states, rather than the people, elect the executive.
Once that is fixed, getting congressional district construction to be the job of a non-partisan body should be next. Gerrymandering has been taken to computer-optimized extremes and the result isn't democracy.
Bruce Perens.
You need to read up on US civics a bit then.
The US was set up as a union of individual states...in the US constitutionally, MOST power is supposed to reside in the states. The US constitution does not grant rights, instead, it is there to enumerate a very few rights and power the Federal govt has. Over the years, the fed has grown more powerful than it was intended, many of us want to rein that back in.
But they way it was set up, you are a citizen of your state first, and THEN a citizen of the United States.
The closest analogy might be the European Union.....they actually in ways mimic what the US did. Think of the individual states as small countries unto themselves, and the Federal govt is one way to regulate the relationships between them and as a singular front to dealing with the rest of the world.
Its actually kind of interesting. Back in the day, there was huge rivalry between states....even today, when you meet someone, you will often ask where they are from. If from a different state, that's kind of a big deal, you know they have started life out in a bit different culture than you did.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Rather than NY being dominated by a coalition of smaller states with less total population? That protects individual and minority rights?
By all means look at a map of red vs. blue. But don't look at a regular map; look at a cartogram where the size of a state is scaled by population rather than physical area. Then let's talk about small dominating big; it's not the square footage you live in that matters, it's the say you have in your own government.
And getting rid of the electoral college doesn't mean we're not a Republic any more. Even if your defintion of "Republic" is "small states have disproportionate power". Small states have that in the Senate.
Anyhow, I've read Federalist no 10, and it sound convincing but it's basically hooey. The idea is that the complicated way the Constitution set things up would prevent the emergence of political parties. That didn't work as planned. Although really the plan was to preserve slavery by giving slaveholding interests more political power. Remember there used to be property requirements for voting. So this really wasn't about protecting minorities at all; Federalist no 10 was just a smokescreen for a compromise that divided power between wealthy people in the North and wealthy people in the South. To sweeten the deal further for Southerners slaves counted as 3/5 of a person.
So it's not really about protecting the little guy; it's about letting the powerful prey upon the less powerful.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why do we level the playing field between rural and urban, but not along any other axes? There are plenty of demographics that are disenfranchised by their relative size, and they would gain important safeguards against oppression by having a louder voice. But we don't, for example, count black people's votes eight times to put them on a level playing field with whites. The electoral college doesn't make the whole system more fair, it just tips the scale in one particular direction.
Also, the idea that if you don't like a state you can just move is meaningless in this case -- we're talking about the results of a federal election. You can't move anywhere to escape those, so that suggestion doesn't weigh on electoral college considerations.
We live in a Republic, not a democracy. The Electoral College does serve a purpose, one that you disagree with, but it still serves a purpose. The GP outlines it very nicely and in unbiased terms.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
How else do you ensure that the POTUS has the interests of small states in mind?
I would actually say that this is part of the reason why Trump is President Elect. The current POTUS couldn't give a rip and actually was quite dismissive of "Fly Over Country". That dismissiveness really did end up hurting Hillary in the Great Lakes region, because she express similar viewpoints throughout her career and candidacy.
You can't ignore people, then get upset when they don't vote for you. That's kind of how things actually are supposed to work.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Every state (except Maine and Nebraska) wants to give the majority of its population the largest voice possible. That's great. This is why the plurality popular vote in a state gets all the electoral college votes.
But wait... what about the voice of the people who are not part of each state's plurality? They are effectively silenced. No good. And these silenced votes represent different proportions in different states; they range from low in deep-red/deep-blue states to high (perhaps even a majority) in swing states.
Another problem with the EC is that swing states effectively decide each election. The candidates don't visit the vast majority of the states because they have practically guaranteed outcomes. The candidates don't get the opportunity to listen to those citizens. Promises are made to the citizens of swing states, but rarely in deep red/blue states.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Could it be tweaked? Sure, I would like to see all the states' electoral votes be proportioned to the candidates by the popular vote within each state.
I think this would undermine the remaining purpose of the electoral system. In this fashion you will essentially have a popular vote, quantized in a funny way. Giving these small states 3 electoral votes and winner-take-all gives them more power than they would have had otherwise. It creates for some inversions, but because the states are low population, it's not so significant that an overwhelming majority is defeated by a powerful minority, it has always been near split.
But really it is there for a REASON. You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States.
Very few people identify this way in the modern age. I've been a citizen of over half a dozen states. I don't even consider it anymore, I move where the jobs are, wherever the jobs are. I am an American first. The one thing I've noticed about state & local governments is that they're the most corrupt, backwards institutions in America, highly subject to cliques and backroom dealing, mostly for sale to the local businessman. Honestly I think our Federation outlived its usefulness long ago. Most of the problems and bullshit fights we see are about state politicians losing some power for corruption and graft based on federal policies. Some states are better than others, but Texas is pretty shitty.
The states are the unit of power in the US. A citizen in Maine has vastly different needs often, than someone in Wyoming, than in Louisiana, than northern NY.
This we can agree on, it is the best reason for states to exist and to retain some autonomy at their level. Which is not to say that I agree that they should continue to function wholly outside of federal control and influence as they often do now, but there is a purpose to their existence.
I don't like that potentially voters in the Electoral College could vote how they want instead of how their state laws say
This is dangerous and scary but doesn't happen much. The original purpose was that this group of intelligentsia would decide that the rubes didn't know what they were doing, that they very blatantly WOULD go against the popular vote. In this case, almost certainly they wouldn't have chosen Trump... he is almost the definition of what the EC was designed to prevent. It seems inconceivable in this day that they'd go against the grain, I would feel better if it were the actual law that they had to (in all states), but I suspect there will be no change until the day it happens.
And if you abandon the electoral college then the ONLY states that matter will be the few most populous states.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
There was a reason we had it. Several actually.
1 travel time of a day or more to the polls for a significant chunk of eligible voters (and outside information getting to the voters was also greatly slowed)
2 extremely limited current information on political issues and events for the average citizens (not a lot in the way of "informed voters")
3 because of (2), many of the politicians and people running the government were sincerely worried about what would happen if the election became a popularity contest among the dumb citizens and a truly bad person was elected president of the country (some would argue we had that happen last night, others would argue it was inevitable given the available options...)
4 the college gave the final say to a smaller handful of more politically-informed people (the electorate) that could, in the event of insanity by the "dumb public", choose the sane option, overruling the popular vote.
The reasons for the college have long since disappeared. The best reason we have at this point to continue using the college is that we've been using it since forever and we're not comfortable with change, even when it's for the better.
The whole "first past the post" scheme itself has problems also, and IMHO should be ditched while we're at it. CGPgrey has a great explanation of this issue and how to fix it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It doesn't completely fix all the issues, fixes several problems, improves some of the remaining issues, and doesn't cause any new problems. Please watch this before responding, I promise you'll enjoy it if you're even remotely interested in the voting process, even if you don't end up agreeing with it by the end,
There is one thing I'd like to clear up that I think a lot of people miss when this discussion comes up. It's actually a point toward KEEPING the college. Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I'm going to blindly ignore opposing reasons, and here's a good one anyone thinking about this needs to consider. Everyone games the college. In a political race, they'll do anything they can (legally, or that they can get away with) to help their candidate win. I'm OK with them doing everything they can within the rules to win. States with lower electoral votes get mostly ignored in races like this. States that have a history of voting very strongly in one direction also get ignored by both candidates. (one says "I have it in the bag, why waste my time here?", the other says "I'll never win these, why waste my time here?") So this WILL tend to create a lopsided popular vote vs electoral vote. Campaigning would be done VERY differently if we went strictly by popular country vote. It's difficult to look back at an election and say with any confidence "would it really make a difference?" States that got lots of ground pounding due to their high electoral count and "batleground state" status would see a lot less traffic, and other more moderately populated areas would see more campaigning. Surely this would change the numbers quite a bit. In what direction is very hard to say. Some years, maybe no noticeable difference. Other years, maybe a huge difference. So what I'm saying is that we can't just look at an election where the popular vote and electoral vote disagree (even somewhat strongly) and say with any great confidence "it would have made a difference if we did it the other way this election". Because we can't. But that being said, I still believe a popular vote using proportional representation would produce results that more closely aligned with who the public would rather see in office. (a lot moreso for congress than president, actually)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Why should the majority be held captive by the majority of the minority? Said another way, why should my vote count for say 1/8 that of a vote from a neighboring state? Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, why should my dissenting vote be taken away from me and awarded to the majority position of my state? Even if my vote counts for less than a vote from say South Dakota I should still be counted. With the electoral college I am not.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
One problem with this is the candidates have no incentive to come to your state (unless it's a "battleground state" or large one). They'll go for the big cities and ignore your entire state.
Because there is more than one branch of government. In the executive, the ONLY national election we have should be represented by all of the states' needs not just the heavily populated cities.
So instead it will be decided by a few "battleground states" whose needs don't reflect the rest of the country's. Got it.
Wisconsin and Michigan were considered blue states, until they became a surprise battleground state.
AKA, every state can become a battleground state.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
How lovely, but then we decided that the citizens get to vote rather than the electors and made everything you just quoted no longer applicable. The electoral college does two things.
One could debate whether landmass or population is more important, but how can anyone debate voter disenfranchisement?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Actually, in a popular vote, the 1 million people living in the city have the exact same voice as the 1 million people living in the country.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You must live in one of the more populous states. We who live in smaller states would never have a say in who becomes President if it were based only on popular vote.
While we're at it, let's go back to letting the state legislatures choose their Senators so that states would be represented in Washington. That was the way it was for much of our country's history and we need to have it again.
But that happens anyways. Generally, "safe states" don't get nearly the attention from candidates as the battleground states.
Mind you, I think one of the things that is going to come out in the wash from this election is that the idea of "firewall states" is a phantom, a miasma built out of pseudo-scientific demographic bafflegab. Clinton didn't lose because Trump stormed the gates so much as she lost because the firewall that Obama had built didn't really exist, or at the very least, it only existed so long as the candidate in question was Barack Obama. I read a report this morning that Bill Clinton had been worried in the lead up to the vote that she hadn't done nearly enough campaigning, that she had put all her effort into battleground states.
In fact, people like myself were actually criticizing Trump for spending so much time in states where his vote was safe, but I think, whatever you think of Trump, his pollsters and campaign team recognized that relying on the notion of safe states is pure hubris. Trump may have built the new engine of presidential elections, and he did it with less money and less resources than Clinton. By every rule in the presidential campaign book, Clinton checked all the boxes, and yet a portion of the supposed safe demographic walked away from her and voted for Trump.
The question that the Dems and Republicans will spend the next three or so years trying to answer is "Is Trump's victory a bizarre one-off, a sort of American Brexit, and will never happen again, or is there a new paradigm taking form?" I'd say as interesting as the 2016 election was, I'm wagering the 2020 is going to be the real product of this disruption. I'd also say guys like Nate Silver and Sam Wang may want to find something else to do, because this, even though I didn't believe, did end up being a Brexit-style vote, where traditional demographic models failed utterly and the pollsters and aggregators by and large got it wrong.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
if two people get a large number of votes, having a few more or less doesn't change how qualified they are to be president. But if those votes came from more regions of the country, specifically from more states, then the one winning a large fraction of the popular vote and the larger fraction of states is the best choice.
If you disagree with that then you would be better served abolishing the senate than worrying about the electoral college as the Senate is all about regional voting not population representation.
Until the senate is gone, the president has to work with both the house and the senate so we need a president with a mandate in both houses for his/her agendas. The electoral colleges strikes that compromise.
Another rational for it, is that it renornalizes the weight of the state away from turn-out to the actual population. If there's a hurricane or a snowfall in some state then the turn out is depressed. But the actual vote is still a representative sample of that state. Thus renormalizing the weight of that vote to the population of the state not the turn out makes sense. Ergo the Electoral college makes sense.
One could tweak it. I dont' like the winner take all method of most state. I'd prefer a proportionality of delegates by the states vote plus a modest bonus for the overall winner in the state.
We don't need actual living breathing delegates I believe. The states can just submit their results. In the event of a tie we could send state reps on short notice.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
This. EC does give more say in the presidential elections to smaller states and that is the point. Just like a bicameral congress. You can't ignore the size of the big states but you can't ignore the small states either.
"A few cities"? Well, let's think about this.
About 125 million people voted for president, out of a total population of about 324 million, so that's about 38.5% of the population that voted.
So, let's figure out how many metro areas (instead of cities) a candidate would need in order to receive the ~60 million votes that got them elected (assuming that 38.5% of the people in each metro area vote).
If someone is going to get 60 million votes, and only 38.5% of people vote, then they will need to talk to 155 million people. According to the list above, that means these metro areas:
New York-Newark metro
Greater LA
Chicago metro
Washington/Baltimore
San Francisco Bay area
Boston metro
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Philadelphia metro
Houston metro
Miami metro
Atlanta metro
Detroit metro
Seattle metro
Phoenix metro
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Cleveland metro
Denver metro
San Diego metro
Orlando metro
Portland metro
Tampa metro
St. Louis metro
That's how many they need, 22 of them. And that assumes that *every voter* in all of those cities votes for the same candidate. Look at that list, do they all vote the same way?
And, what is this, the 19th century where you only hear a politician's views if you actually go to physically hear them talk?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Who won the popular vote is irrelevant. This election was a contest with clear rules and both candidates knew those rules. They decided where to spend their time and energy based on developing a strategy to win more electoral votes. Neither candidate was trying to increase their share of the popular vote. Had this been an election decided by the popular vote, both candidates would have behaved differently and the outcome would have likely been different.
Mentioning that Clinton won the popular vote this year is like mentioning that a losing football team had more total yards than the winning team. Sure, it's a meaningful statistic, but maybe they wouldn't have punted that one time if they were going for yards instead of points.
The point of the electoral system is to make sure that candidates spread their effort around the country rather than doing a massive get out the vote effort in the handful of places where they are already popular.
But really it is there for a REASON.
There was a reason we had it. Several actually.
Yes, there were reasons -- unfortunately none of the ones you mention really are correct. They're the reasons that modern political analysts make up because they seem to make sense to them, based on how the system operates NOW.
But the Electoral College operated differently at the beginning, and if you read the various proposals and debates among the Founders, it's very clear that their motivations were quite different.
I'll try to sum it up briefly. There were some of the Founders who wanted Congress to choose the President. There were others who wanted more diverse voices from state government representatives. Few really wanted to entrust it to "the people," because they had all read their ancient Greek and Roman history and knew that democracies were largely disasters that eventually ended up putting tyrants into power.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution saying how Electoral College members are chosen, only that the state legislatures decide how. In the majority of states for the first few decades of the U.S., Electors were mostly chosen by state governments -- many states didn't even bother holding a popular vote AT ALL. Others had various hybrid systems. See the Wikipedia article on the Electoral College if you want more details.
Anyhow, how precisely did the Founders think things were going to work? Remember that there were no political parties at the beginning. They all assumed George Washington would be the first president, but they couldn't imagine consensus emerging after him. So the Electoral College was set up to create a "short list" of good candidates chosen by the states (according to whatever method the legislatures decided).
The Electors originally did not cast separate votes for President and Vice President -- they just had two votes, and at least one of them was required to be not for his home state. That was to prevent states from just deadlocking by electing people from home (since so much was invested in individual states at this time).
The idea was that most Electors would end up voting for someone from their home state, but also someone with more regional or even national consensus. And then those few names would float to the top -- and the "short list" would be sent to Congress to actually decide the election. Remember that originally the person with the most votes would be President, and the person with the 2nd-most votes would be VP.
The Founders -- living before political parties -- assumed that Congress (specifically the House of Representatives) would choose the President in most elections. The Electoral College only existed to create a "short list" based on representatives of state governments and thereby to guarantee more diversity than might come from an established body like Congress. (Also, Electors were required to meet SEPARATELY in their states, not en masse, to prevent the sort of collusion and "backroom dealing" that might happen in a body like Congress. That was another benefit.)
THOSE were the reasons why the Electoral College was created. It originally had nothing to do with most of the crap people say today. The concept that a "popular vote" would even be taken for President in most states wasn't even contemplated by the Founders, who just preferred to get input from state governments to narrow down the field, rather than letting Congress choose the President directly.
So now you know. The Founders were much more anti-"democratic" than you ever thought. And they introduced this complex mechanism to prevent centralized collusion and to get regional consensus around a short list of candidates in an era before parties and factions were assumed.
Because that was the concession given to smaller and rural states in order to get them to join the original Union. Without that keystone in the voting process, the United States of America wouldn't exist.
You can argue it isn't relevant today, 240 years later. But removing that aspect from the Constitution would entail getting all the smaller and rural states (well, a bit less than 3/4 of them) to agree to give up the leverage the electoral college gives them over the more populous states. Good luck with that. Forcing the change upon them without a Constitutional amendment would be akin to a bait and switch - get someone to agree to one set of terms to enter a contract, then unilaterally change those terms after they've signed on. If you're willing to do that, then there's really no point to even having a Constitution, is there?
California gave all 55 votes to Clinton while 31% of the population voted for Trump. I'd say the large states have far more effect on elections than say New Hampshire with 4 whole votes. CA also called it for Clinton before a single vote was counted. Does the EC only prove to be a problem when it's not to your advantage?
And while we are at it, there is a massive voter depression in CA because people see their votes do no good. If it was popular vote, CA could have added a few million more to Trump as easily as not.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"they should have influence exactly in proportion to their populations"
California gets 55 electoral college votes, with 53 of those based on its population. Alaska gets 3, with 1 based on population. There is proportional representation.
Constitutionally, there is no requirement that the people even get a vote for President: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..." A state may decide to let the Governor appoint all the electors directly, or let the statehouse vote. Nothing says the people shall vote for their electors.
The President is not the representative of the people. He (or she) is the CEO charged with executing the laws created by Congress, which itself is supposed to be representative of the people and the States as reflected by the House and Senate (or the Senate before the 17th Amendment). The President also represents the US interests in making treaties, as commander-in-chief (going to war), and making appointments for courts etc. See Article 2 for the enumeration of Presidential powers.
The President is not the leader of a mob bound to do what majority of the mob says. The office of President is the leader of the United States, not the leader of the people of the United States.
I suppose you'd be pleased if San Francisco, LA, NYC, Philly, and Boston could elect the president by themselves and ignore the rest of the country. But have a look at a county-by-county map and realize that almost exactly half of the voters are spread out over the entire country--commonly derided as "flyover country", while the other half are squashed into a small number of dense urban centers.