On these points, I have to mostly agree. "The winner-take-all-contests" with the Westminster form of governance (of which USA still belongs to) creates this kind of dynamic where a few votes can dramatically change the final outcome.
And what you are proposing is more in line with proportional representation, common in western/northern Europe.
We could agree that the USA would benefit from such a change. But in its current state, the USA cannot make such a constitutional change in the next two decades.
But I think it is important to understand the history behind the EC. For the thirteen colonies to come together, the "imbalance" of the smaller states had to be addressed. The EC was part of that solution. We could argue that it was a good fit for those times.
And in their deliberations, the founding fathers had eschewed the concept of the political party for they saw how parties distorted good decision making in their mother country Great Britain. So the FF designed the USA electoral system with the belief that the formation of political parties would not happen. The FF believed that a direct election of the president would result in a populist who would be able to override the will the Congress. Thus was created a three stage indirect election to the president: Voters-->state legislators; State legislators-->electors: Electors-->president. It this way, it was believed a more sensible president would be elected, someone who saw the importance of Congress. And yet, the power came from the states, not Congress.
By 1820, the political parties were firmly established. The original intent of the FF was lost--including the good reasons for EC.
Even today, a vote for the president is legally a vote for an elector for the president. In this way, the original wording of the constitution is still kept. But both you and I know that the EC has become a direct election. Trumps' and Biden's names were on the ballot, not any electors.
To get back to your point of the 51/49 or 90/10 victory in American elections. It is possible for the president to be elected with let's say 35% of the vote--by having a 51/49 split in a party's winning states and a 10/90 split in the losing state. But that just won't happen statistically speaking. At least 30% of voters in Oklahoma will vote D; at least 30% of voters in Massachusetts will vote R. The country will not produce states with 90/10 splits.
Mr. Trump was a viable candidate in 2016 and 2020. It would have been nice that he was not and been so soundly defeated in 2016 that he would not have run in politics again. But that did not happen. His political style--like it or not--resonated with a lot of Americans. The EC cannot vault an unpopular candidate into the position of the president. To me, the abolishment of the EC is only a smokescreen hiding what really needs to be fixed in the USA; i.e., the abolishment of the political parties. But I seem to be the only person talking about that.
On another front, the current political parties adjust their campaign resources--money, talent, and volunteers--to manage the EC in their favor. For example, the Democrats can move resources out of Washington, Oregon, and California and into Arizona and Texas to try to win elections there. And by forcing the R's to spend more money in Texas to help the R's keep that state, the R's are spending less in Michigan and Wisconsin. The R's don't expect to win New York, but they will put up a minimal presence in that state just to ensure the D's are forced to use resources to keep that state. For example, the R's might spend $1m in NY just to force the D's to spend $2m. This maneuvering within the rules of the EC is just a big football game for the back-room players of the D's and R's.
So fascinating for political junkies and recovering political junkies. But should we really be leaving governance to those people who are supposedly better at playing this game?
