Where specifically is there gerrymandering in the EC system? Electors are chosen under the rules established by each state, and the Electors are directed by law how to vote. Currently it is almost universally a winner-take-all for the Electors, so they are required to vote how the majority of their state's voters did.
The whole idea of gerrymandering is to "divide and conquer" in an effort to marginalize groups of voters. The EC divides states into solid R, solid D, or swing. Solids are largely cast by the wayside, especially if they're the minority. Mission Accomplished.
you oppose the way Congress is constructed (as well as all the State level legislatures) where there is a balance between population (House of Reps) and States (Senate)?
At the federal level, while I can see the rationale behind this "balance", I'm not sure it has any effect in terms of "balance"... It's simply two bodies that use each other to score bonus points. The House passes some crazy rah rah law like "extra 10% income tax for redheads" and the Senate brings "sanity". Lolz galore. Why not have three? House, Middle, and Senate? Do I hear four?
Given the abysmal ratings out federal representatives earn year after year, I would say, whoa, it ain't working folks... But it's cast in stone so...
That's really some twisted logic to say that one party has benefited by the EC.
Given the distribution of democratic votes, it's not twisted logic by any means. Small states are automatically GOP, large states don't matter after a certain point... This leaves a handful of states to decide for everyone... Hello Gerry...
Tell me exactly precisely and with what level of confidence we can conclude that absent the EC or with a purely proportional EC Hillary would have won the 2016 election. Explain to me your logic that the candidates would not have campaigned any differently than they did, and how voters would have shown up or stayed home exactly the same. Would Trump supporters in California, Oregon, Hawaii, NY, NJ, CT, and DC have stayed home under a NPV the way they did with the EC? Would Dems in Idaho have stayed home under NPV?
That's a pie in the sky question. A pure NPV system would have forced policies to be put on the platform that benefit more people. This would change the way candidates campaign MUCH more. Possibly in ways we can't even imagine. In my birth country there are no swing states... And campaign intensity is relatively uniform across the country.
You are claiming that the NPV in previous Presidential elections was un-influenced by the EC system. Which is complete hogwash.
I have no idea what this means. If it means that because of the EC, people stay home, sure, they do. To what extent it influenced elections we don't know. Bob the Democrat stays home in Kentucky much like Jill the GOP fan stays home in Boston. How many Bob's and Jill's? No idea. But we do know that our turnout percent is pitifully low, which may or may not influence the outcome.
In my birth country we're generally required to vote, incidentally. Not a bad thing. And we do have a voter ID card. Again not a bad thing.
The EC was useful 200 years ago. Today, I'm not quite sure. Any election system can be - and generally is - gamed.