It's almost like different areas of the country have significantly different circumstances and needs, and that there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.It's an interesting argument both ways. Why should a tiny state with almost no one in it have such influence over the election? Or, why should the big states dominate every decision while ignoring the smaller ones?
Neither side of the argument owns the high ground. I wish I had a better solution. The polarization of this country means there's always a significant chunk of the country fucking pissed after an election, no matter the outcome. No one would be bitching about the EC if we didn't literally hate both candidates.
Both sides feel like they're being threatened, one socially, the other economically. I don't know a good solution either, but I know that whoever is winning at any point tells the other side to just deal with it. I don't see any way for the economically bereft areas of the country to ever prosper without changing, but a lot of them don't want to change, they just want things to go back to the way they used to be. I don't see that happening, regardless of who's the president. The socially threatened side, on the other hand, does not at all want things to go back to the way they used to be and want things to keep changing.
We're looking at polar opposite goals and definitions to success. I don't see how there can be a compromise when the desires of the two sides are so vastly different in the scope of culture and time.