The greatest gift you can give somebody is your own personal development. I used to say, “If you will take care of me, I will take care of you.” Now I say, “I will take care of me for you, if you will take care of you for me.”
After the recent election, there are a lot of Democrats and other left-leaning folks are making noise about abolishing the electoral college in favor of a nationwide popular vote. And while I tend to identify more with the Democrats, on this issue I favor keeping the electoral college.
Historically this system was put into place so that less populated states would still have influence over representation compared to the more populated ones. In the current system, every state—no matter how small—gets at least 3 electors. Given that there are 538 total electors, that means each state has at least ½% say in the outcome of any election. Switching to a popular vote would mean there is no lower limit to the influence a particular state would have. In a popular vote system—given the current population estimates for the USA and the states—a state would need to have 1.7 million or more residents to have that level of influence. There are currently 12 states (plus DC) that fall below that threshold. I can guarantee that they will not be giving up that extra influence willingly.
Since the electoral college system is part of the Constitution, it would require a Constitutional Amendment to change it. Go take a look at the requirements for that (e.g. requires ¾ of state legislatures to independently approve), and you will understand why this is unlikely to ever happen.
Nor should it. I argue that conditions still exist where the the living situations and issues of people in the less populous states are sufficiently different from those who live in the more populous states. It would be all too easy to ignore or minimize their viewpoints without some base level of electoral influence. This system forces politicians to care about those states and the issues they face. HRC's campaign essentially ignored the Midwest/Rust Belt states and that cost her the election.
One way to look at it is, rather than having a pure Democracy where one person gets one vote, and each vote is equally influential, we have a system where each geographic region (e.g. state) has a base level of influence, and then additional influence proportional to it's population. The founders built a non-linear system where influence tapers as population grows. And I think that contributes to the strength and resiliency of our nation. Otherwise, it'd be all to easy to ignore the issues in the "flyover states", disenfranchising them, and potentially leading to another Civil War. After the presidential election of 2016, I think it's safe to say it will be a lot harder to ignore the issues of those states.
So, if you want to have more influence in elections, there is an easy solution: move to Wyoming (or any of the 12 least-populated states).