Lets get rid of primary elections when electing our president

[Angrboda]

Not sure you're making any kind of point here.  That we do treat vastly different populations the same dependent on statehood in the senate is not a good argument that we should do so when electing a president.

I'm not saying that it should be like the senate, or that each state should have one vote; or anything like that.   You may note, that I also mentioned the house of representatives, and that the electoral college is a mix of these two ideologies.  As I think about it;  I believe that the word "representative" may not be the correct word to use, as what is being talked about is electing the head of state, not a representative for legislation.   The argument is that the interests of that head of state, should not be on the individuals, but on what is best for the country as a whole.  Do you not think that this is a good idea?

Are you differentiating between the interests of the country as a whole and the interests of its individuals?  If so, I'd have to ask what you mean by the former, and why it should be privileged over the latter?   How does the representative being elected change what we consider to be the relevant interests?  You seem to have simply reasserted your prior position using different language without actually justifying it.  If, as you seem to be suggesting, empty farmland has as much interest in who leads the country as its people do, then I'd have to say I don't find your position at all persuasive.  The only reason empty farmland has interests derives from the fact that its fate is of interest to the people who own that farmland.  Even by your own argument, ultimately it comes down to the interests of the people, not some mysterious proxy which you somehow equate as "the country as a whole."  You don't appear to have an argument.  

I don't know offhand whether states rights and representation biased towards states rather than populations favors Republicans, but I'd be rather suspicious of your argument if it does.  The election of Trump in spite of him having fewer individuals vote for him than Clinton seems to confirm my suspicions, at least as far as this last election is concerned.   The last time before this that the majority vote lost the election it was also a Republican, George W. Bush.  Given your inability to clearly articulate a justification for your position, I have to say that my suspicions have been aroused.

Right now, there are somewhat more Democratic voters overall. This has actually been true for a long time, and while the numbers of self-identified Republicans and Democrats have both been falling, Democrats still have a numerical edge, which is slightly larger when independents who “lean” toward one party or another are factored in: Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows.

But increasingly, Democratic voters live in large urban areas, and are concentrated in several parts of the country. There are more of them, somewhat, but they live in relatively compact geographic areas. This gives Republicans a mild advantage in the electoral college; Republican voters are more spread out, and the Electoral College system potentially over-represents them slightly as a part of the overall population. This is, as I said, slight; it does not mean that Democrats cannot win the electoral college, or that Republicans are always more likely to do so. All it means is this: in the event that circumstances line up just right so there is a split between the popular and electoral votes, the split is, for the moment, likely to favor Republicans.

Newsweek: Quora Question: Does the Electoral College Favor Republicans?