Here is how the  electoral college votes for each state went in 2016.:

https://www.businessinsider.com/final-electoral-college-map-trump-clinton-2016-11

Winner take all doesn't sound right to me. Anybody know if the results from a proportional tally has been calculated ?

In any case, I prefer the will of the dumb majority instead of the will of the smart politicians.

"For decades, I was always strongly against the electoral college. My reasoning was that a persons vote in California=55  is actually worth more than one in Wyoming=3."

I see it as giving the small states more clout than they'd have it was based on popular vote. If it were based on popular vote California would have a "weight" of 53, Wyoming would have only 1.

For that reason I see almost zero chance the system could ever get changed to be based on popular vote, the small states would never vote to give up their relative edge.

The thing that people seem to ignore is that the great population advantage that New York and California enjoy in a vote, is also a great advantage in assigning delegates to the Electoral Collage. 

PJ is right.   If you do the math,  California has a population of 39.5 million with 53 electoral votes, or 1 electoral vote for each 746,000 people.   Wyoming has a population of 579,315 with 3 electoral votes or 1 electoral vote for each 193,315 citizens. This give a Wyoming resident roughly 4 times the weight in the vote.

579,315 / 39,500,000 = .0014%

3 / 53  = .0567%

Yes the Electoral College gives the Wyoming voter a .04% edge, but is it really worth it?

The electoral delegates are chosen by State commitees and we know what happened to Bernie ... and Trump complained about the process during the campaign. 

I still prefer the will of the " ill informed " majority to that of political motivation.  

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided it may be  :-)

As per our agreement years ago, we still agree to disagree.  ;- )

 I agree with pj, Carl, and Tim that, like it or not, the math says that an individual’s vote in a relatively small population state has a much higher weight than that for a relatively large population state. I think that is a good thing because otherwise Presidential candidates are liable to ignore smaller states completely as it would be too inefficient to spend significant time in the smaller states.

 I’ll try a hypothetical extreme example to make my point. Let’s say that 200 years from now that 99% of the US population were in Calif, TX, FL, and NY instead of the current 33%. It wouldn’t make sense for a candidate to spend any time of significance outside of those 4 states if the winner were to be based on popular vote instead of the electoral college. Would we want that? Would we want voters in just those 4 states to essentially control the election?

And that is exactly the point, and ultimately the wisdom of the electoral college.

I completely understand your points and thats one reason that I gave my previous reasoning(how I thought for decades).......which is apparently flawed.......based on the votes/electoral votes math ratio.  But I never thought of it in those terms. 

It was so close in 2000, that if Gore had taken Wyoming instead of Bush, he would have won but my thoughts in previous decades, were based on close elections....... the last remaining votes for big states matter much more than the last few remaining votes for small states. 

In most presidential elections, 3 electoral votes don't matter. In 2016, if Clinton had won TX, with its 38 electoral votes, she would have beat Trump. If she had won FL, with 29 and any other of a number of states that were really close and she would have won.

However, she could have won WY,MT,ND,SD,NE,KS and OK but still would have lost because their electoral vote contributions are tiny compared to the big states. 

A vote in Wyoming has the potential to be part of a contribution towards 3 electoral votes, A vote in California is part of a contribution towards 55. 

If the lottery is worth 55 million vs 3 million, alot more people are going to play it for 55 million...........even if the odds are smaller to win it because their ticket, though being the same price has the power to win almost 20 times as much money.

There is much more to it but in CLOSE elections and with states with double digit electoral votes, that also are evenly divided,  each vote matters MUCH more because it contributes towards something much more powerful. 

So, in essence it's like Larry stated, that having this imbalance causes candidates to spend more time campaigning in states that are worth much more because, as per my reasoning above, they are worth much more. 

In recent years, I have appreciated the electoral process a bit more. A person in California has more power for the reasoning above and it should be balanced. If a big state is close, they will get more attention. 

Without the electoral process, in a general election,  it might be even worse because big states have all the people and thats what would matter without the electoral process.............which is why my thoughts for decades turned into uncertainty recently.

Think of this...

People who live in densely populated areas have a completely different mindset, a completely different set of priorities and objectives than people who live in sparsely populated areas.  

Should those dense populates  have the right to impose their ideology on the sparse populate with no check/balance? California is still a massive factor in the electoral outcome.  But without the Electoral college,  states like Wyoming would not have a voice.