Barack Obama won the popular vote. And we've been calling for the electoral College to end constantly since Rutherford B Hayes, not just when we lose.

False. Slate in fact ran an article defending the electoral college after Obama won, then after Trump won they ran an article calling for the end of the electoral college.
I actually submitted on this.
imgflip.com/i/1e7oho

I'm going to regret engaging with you, but A) Slate does not dictate the opinions of an entire faction of the country. B) Obviously, Slate employs a wide range of contributors who, it would seem, disagree with each other.

But to reiterate A, even if you found two articles written by the exact same person that flip-flopped in this manner, the Electoral College and indeed electoral practices in general have been criticized non-stop for a long time. The closest it ever came to being repealed was under Nixon, of all people.

Of course Slate doesn't represent the opinion of every liberal in the country. However, Slate represents large contingency of the liberal opinion. Claiming otherwise is just foolish.

We see this flip flopping of opinion constantly from both sides any many issues. But to say that liberals have been calling consistently to end the Electoral college is just not accurate.

This guy is stupid. Personally I believe the vote count should be more population based (get rid of the Senate vote) and the only function is that the states vote together. The fact that small states have more proportional vote is unfair. I think since we are a union of states the states can vote together as the majority of the state is what it votes for potus

I'm pro-popular vote BUT I do understand why rural America would feel put out by such a system.

That said, the answer to that isn't to put out urban America to rural America's advantage.

And to date, nobody I've ever heard from who was anti-popular vote has suggested a fair balance between urban and rural America. Only ever as a defense of the EC. Because God forbid that they should lose the unfairness when it's to their benefit.

Total nonsense.

I just think that states can decide to vote together or give their electoral votes porportionally. That isn't a rural vs urban thing but rather a president will have to be supported in many states rather than very popular in a few and not in most.
The problem is that the electoral votes are determined by your number of representatives. Every states has two senators so every state starts with two that aren't based on the number of people. That makes states like Vermont and Wisconsin have too many electoral votes.
That isn't why Trump won though. He won because he got a narrow majority in many of his states which gave him all of the votes.
The electoral college basically means if you win a state by 51 percent or 99 percent it will matter the same because you get all of that states vote. That doesn't seem unfair to me because the we are a group of states and you as a citizen are under your state which is then under the nation.

I'm glad that someone actually pays attention to the mathematics of it. That makes me very happy.

The rural vs urban part does come into play when you think about what happens when states start to get major metropolitan areas. The two Senate votes become unimportant when the EC votes get watered down over the population, whereas states that are entirely rural - as you point out - get 2/3 of their voting power from Senate math anyway.