Question

Americans do not have a constitutional right to choose their president. The Electoral College selects the president, and, failing that, the House of Representatives selects the president. Still, presidents seek to act in the name of the American people. Increasingly throughout the twentieth century, presidents cultivated a popular role for themselves and reached out to the public. Is presidential rhetoric regarding popular mandates inconsistent with this fact of presidential selection? Should the Electoral College be reformed or abolished?

Answer 1

“America got king without monarchy and Britain got a monarchy without a king.”
– Eric Nelson  

The institution of the Electoral college was devised keeping in mind that the bigger states like Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania would dominate small states.

As already mentioned in the question the electoral college selects the president, and, failing that, the House of Representatives selects the president. As a result of which, In last elections, Donald Trump lost the popular vote by almost three million ballots yet won the Electoral College by 74 votes. Given the fact, there are certain more lacunas in the Electoral college they are following.

1.If president loses the popular vote still manages to win it undermines electoral legitimacy, which is inconsistent with a popular mandate.

2. Faithless elector issue :
There have been instances in the past when body’s electors cast their ballot in opposition to the dictates of their state’s popular vote. This results in nullifying of States popular vote.

3. With the increase in the disparities between rich and poor, the risk of overrepresentation of electoral college.

Above are some of the reasons that count for either reform of electoral college or abolition whatever is desirable to make stature of President more representative but in a fair manner.