I've been thinking recently as to why we have the electoral college and how it essentially hinders true democracy. Like I live in the south and almost always my state will be majority red due to the demographic. Now if a democrat votes, doesn't it make it essentially useless just based on a statistic perspective.
I think the best example I can give is California. They haven't voted red since 88, and due to their population, that's an automatic 55 votes for the democrats. And studies have shown that the bipartisan system has been getting increasingly polarized[1].
So I wonder, is the electoral college pretty much hindering democracy at this point since the win really just relies on swing states?

[1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/

Because voting by popularity means that politicians would only pander to coastal states; and even then, only the urban areas. At least they have to try in places like Ohio as it is.

It forces candidates to focus on more than just a few key states, and ensures the election is representative of the decision of the states. Yes, of course the electoral college hinders democracy, because we're not a democracy; we're a constitutional republic.

The majority isn't always right.

You seem to be the only one who sort of got where I was going with this. I get why the EC exist and what it's purpose is, but the fact is that in certain states voting for a certain party is completely useless. Among other things.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004. 

One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican. 

The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, which divide almost exactly equally. 

Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city.
   
A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.  In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.
      
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

It forces candidates to focus on more than just a few key states, and ensures the election is representative of the decision of the states. Yes, of course the electoral college hinders democracy, because we're not a democracy; we're a constitutional republic.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
   
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question.  In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey).  The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country.  For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a constitutional republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
   
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. 
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
      
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
   

I'm torn on the college. On one hand it is a hinderance, but on the other hand it can prevent people like Trump from coming to power.

The electoral college is basically how Dubya was able to win in 2000 despite Gore receiving the majority of the popular vote. If anything, the college would be what gets Dump into the Oval Office. What is there to be on the fence about?

>Copying and pasting arguments instead of forming your own

One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and they voted 63% Democratic in 2004. 

18 points is a pretty big deal. That's not even the biggest cities by state-- that's at the national level. That'd be multitudes larger state-by-state.

One-sixth lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and rural America voted 60% Republican.

And again, 18% is a pretty big deal. If someone secured just the top 100 cities and the hick-vote, that'd be a third of the nation.

Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city.

This has nothing to do with who is a Democrat or Republican, it's the fact that the Electoral College helps solve the problems of popular election. The most practical being where populations are located. Here's a map I threw together to help explain it:



The red states are the 9 most populous states. With just those nine states, you have a majority of the population. Right off the bat, you've narrowed your campaigning to less than 20% of the continent. The purplish-blue areas are the where a majority of each state's population is. Quite obviously, in every single instance, it is either near the coast and/or close to the state capital. There's no need to campaign an entire state, thanks to television, radio, and other media sources, so candidates only visit the highest concentrations of population. That would mean they would likely only touch on the largest of the purplish-blue areas on that map; that being where they already do visit, judging by the fact that four of the nine states are swing states with the Electoral College system, and the other five are nearly-evenly divided in whether they vote for the left or right. So with a popular election, the essential vote would be marginalized from 24% of states to 18%, and then even further when you realize that in no single instance is a population evenly divided throughout a state; if you high ball it, they would visit 2.3% of the country's area in campaigning. (This is, again, lower than the current system.)

Another issue is the margin of error; when you limit you margins at lower countings, you end up closer to the realistic statistics. I'm going to assume that you're smart enough to realize that, even with popular election, it would have to be limited on a state-to-state basis; the failed idea of internet voting partially went the way of the buffalo due to the immensely impractical nature of containing all votes in one location and how easy it would be to sabotage the results. When you don't have representatives for each population (see: electors), your margin of error goes up; obviously, when talking about battleground states (which make up 22.2% of the US population, and 44.4% of the 9 most populous states) this can mean the difference between a win and a loss (see: 2000 Presidential Election).
      

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

Yeah, and that literally will never happen. Even in battleground states, they only visit the largest populated areas and capitals. Which is where they would still go in popular elections because, obviously, that's where the most people are.

But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

That isn't exclusive in the Electoral College. This is what makes me think you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the subject sans possibly the article you Googled and are regurgitating; Nebraska and Maine both use Proportional Representation in the Electoral College. And, shockingly, it completely works with the Electoral College.

If you're upset about Winner-Take-All, that's a state-level issue and not the problem of the Electoral College. If your state offers a ballot-initiative, then circulate a petition within your state to have their system changed to Proportional Representation. If not, miraculously try to find the one Congressional candidate that would support it, and support him/her.

Margins of error occur in statistics, not in a vote count. Any amount of more popular votes than an opponent obtained, makes that candidate the winner in an election decided by popular vote.

Popular Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner