© maxresdefault
But the picture is more complicated. "Our Founding Fathers established the Electoral College because those larger states, those larger areas, don't necessarily need to be the ones that rule," said Mary Sue McClurkin, a Republican elector from Alabama.
In Trump's hometown of New York City, which Clinton won easily, Democratic elector Stuart Appelbaum countered that "we're electing the president of the entire country," so "the will of the entire country should be reflected in the results." It's an expected argument given the unusual circumstances of the 2016 election. Clinton won some 2.6 million more votes than Trump in the nationwide tally. But Trump is [on] line to get 306 of the 538 electoral votes under the state-by-state distribution of electors used to choose presidents since 1789.
Trump won rural areas, small towns and many small cities, including in states Clinton carried. Clinton won in the largest urban areas, including in Trump states.
Former Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell, a GOP elector, said Democrats' strength on the coasts is enough to justify the Electoral College. "A presidential election decided each time by either California or New York," he said, would leave voters in Alaska and many other places "with no voice" in presidential politics.
Comment: Voters love or hate the Electoral College, depending on perception of its function and bias to individual candidate election numbers. If it should come to pass that citizens wish to eliminate the EC, perhaps knowing what it does and why is important should be a precursor to making that decision.