There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error:
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College.
This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from:

Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective.

There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either.

With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have.