In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes (185-184) achieved an electoral majority, although Samuel J. Tilden won a popular majority (!.
4,285,992 compared to Hayes's 4,033,768). ( 2.).
Clearly, in that case the people wanted Tilden to be the president, but due to the Electoral College Hayes became the president. If the popular vote .
counted, Tilden would've won and the people would've gotten what they wanted, and that is what democracy is all about. Another good example is the 1888, presidential election between Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland. Even though Grover Cleveland won the popular vote race, but Benjamin Harrison still became president because he had 233 electoral votes compared to Grover Cleveland's 168 electoral votes.( 3.) People get to choose who they want to be the president. For example if a candidate wins forty-nine percent of the votes in California, he wins the fifty-four electoral votes of California. However, what about the other candidate who only had one percent less. He also won forty-eight percent of the votes. However, he gets nothing, and I think that is very unfair because the forty-eight percent of the votes people casted for him didn't even count.
The Electoral College system is undemocratic in a second respect, because it weighs the votes of some Americans more than others. Since each state has at least three electoral votes regardless of population, smaller states have a higher ratio electors to population than do larger states. On the other hand, the "winner-take-all" feature that the states have superimposed on the system tends to magnify the importance of voters in the larger states. A candidate who wins California by one popular vote wins fifty-four electoral votes; a candidate winning in Delaware only gets three. In turn, candidates have reason to commit disproportionate time and resources to, and tailor their platforms to the views of voters in, the largest states, thereby enhancing the influence of groups concentrated in the large industrial states.