The EC is determined by congressional apportionment. For example, New Mexico has its requisite two senators plus three congressmen based on the three congressional districts allowed us based on the population of our state as indicated by a national census. Two plus three equals five EC votes. Now I wouldn't have a problem with the vote from each district determining who the EC vote of that district would go to instead of the total vote of the state determining where all five our our EC votes go, but nevertheless New Mexico has a voice, however, small in the process. As does Wyoming with three EC votes despite having only a little over a half million in population. Do away with the electoral college and neither New Mexico or Wyoming has any ability whatsoever to have a voice in who will govern us. And without having at least some EC votes in the process, nobody would give a damn about us or our concerns about anything.
On the other hand California, New York, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, and Georgia--8 states out of 50 plus the District of Columbia--constitute roughly 50% of the population of the USA and with a combined EC vote of 225 EC votes they have roughly 42% of the total 538 EC. They still are a powerful force to be reckoned with in the process, but their sheer numbers alone do not offset the other 42 states that also need a voice in the process.
One thing is for sure. If a half dozen heavily Democrat and heavily populated counties in California had voted mostly Trump, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Or if a Republican President happened to garner more popular votes but the Democrat won the EC vote. And no way the Democrats would agree to the vote from each district determining the outcome rather than the winner take all system in most states. If that was the case, Republians would have won in 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012.
