Democrats who support the electoral college

[Figueira]

Don't know how Oklahoma is rendered "irrelevant" considering it's almost completely rural and their vote reflects that.

What? Oklahoma is only a third rural.

[Figueira]

The problem with the electoral college isn't that it benefits "small states"--even if each states had a number of EVs exactly corresponding to its population, Trump would still win. The problem is that if a slim majority of people in a state vote for a particular candidate, that candidate wins ALL of the state's electoral votes. Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia--all very populous states--by relatively slim margins, thus winning those states despite the existence of huge minorities in those states that voted for Clinton.

[Figueira]

We would be at the mercy of the big cities without the electoral college system. LA county, Cook County and NYC combined have about 23 million people that would mean those 3 metros alone could out weigh WY AK VT ND SD MT HI DE ME NH RI IDNE  NM UT NV and IA combined

Not necessarily. If the states you listed vote a combined 80% for Trump, and the cities you listed vote a combined 60% for Clinton, the states would outvote the cities. What electoral college supporters just can't accept is that that isn't the case--there aren't as many Republicans in Manhattan as there are Democrats in rural Nebraska, so Clinton ends up having more total support. You're using this bogus geographical argument to make up for the fact that your candidate just isn't popular.