Saying that the president is not a president of the people when people literally vote directly for that person (unlike most of the wester republics) is frankly pretty weak. How can you argue he is not the most influencial political figure in a US citizen life?
This turns out to be really helpful when someone starts claiming something like widespread voter fraud for instance, because there is no one institution to attack, or even identical set of rules that can be exploited. Each state runs it's elections as it sees fit, and then votes the way it deems necessary - and is strongly interested in making sure it's voice is heard.
Some states have tied their electoral votes to the national popular vote in the name of increases democracy. It will be interesting to see the first state that has its electoral votes changed due to this. I imagine those residents won't be so thrilled to have their votes go against their will and in favor of how other people in the country voted.
For all practical purposes though, people vote directly for the president (last election is the proof that even a full front effort won't sway the election outcome from the people's votes). The only practical difference is that one single vote has a different weight depending on what state you live in.
Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome.
Just imagine how different the left and right parties would be if the will of the people would be equally represented.
So the most populous cities should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of rural people? This sounds like the recipe for a Hunger Games classist uprising.
This is the same as saying your vote counts less than someone with more friends than you.
Might as well just throw out the whole state sovereignty idea which is an option.
Our whole system was based on individual rights and that philosophy extends to states as equal members of the union.
Just try to look from the other side of the fence. I can rephrase your question as:
"So the few individuals living in rural areas should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of the vast majority of the people in the USA?"
So yes. I am sorry but with a democracy, you sometime lose and have to accept that the decision is different from your preference.
In the US this only applies to federal, how much federal laws should impact states is not really in discussion here (and honestly I have no opinion on the matter. I am originally from Europe and have limited understanding of a lot of states laws and structures).
Also, you are confirming my point that rural areas are over-represented. You seem to intend that it is rightly so, but I do find this criteria unjust, just like your example of voting power coupled with amount of friends is.
To me, the only criteria that I find just is "every person has one vote with the exact same power". It's simple and naïve, but only one I have seen that I consider fair.
How you cluster people is irrelevant for a policy to be fair or not. It's petty to chose what gives you an advantage. You should stick to a set of values and agree on policies that better express those values.
Understanding and protecting minorities is one of the core values that need to shapes policies.
You can't solve the minority problem by giving them more votes, because you can't give it to all minorities. Everyone is part of somekind of minority.
Today rural people are a minory who has a privilege compared to others.
Is this a thing? I had no idea. Do you know what states do that ?