Majorities Don't Mean That Much.

       Our nation elects its president every four years, not by a majority of citizens who took the time and effort to vote, but by an unusual means that promotes the number of states and the populations of those states. Except that states with very small numbers of citizens still get at least three votes, even if that state had only one registered voter.
       What makes it interesting for voters of very highly populated states is that each individual voter has less say in who gets elected than people in low population states. Now, I'm not necessarily finding fault with the Electoral College system, as its called, but I do find it odd that a country that prides itself on fairness and majority rule would ignore the majority factor when electing its President. Even the One Person, One Vote rule is ignored.
       So, in the most recent election, there was a clear winner of the majority of voters and a clear winner of the Electoral College vote, and it wasn't the same person. That's okay, but what I don't understand is why the same process is not used in the House of Representatives election? Hey, if its good enough for the Presidential election it should be good enough for Congress.
        Of course the Senate is a completely different setup. Each state gets two seats regardless of the size of the state or its population. So tiny Rhode Island gets the same as Alaska and Idaho gets the same as California. I have to say, the American electoral processes seem to be unable to come to a consensus. The whole process seems to have been written by several opposing factions. which, in fact, is exactly the case. That's what happened. So, just because you're in the majority doesn't mean you get to have your say. Sometimes the minority wins. And it would take a super majority to change it.