No it is not meaningless to look at area. Look if it were not for the Electoral College the mass of rural lands and fly over country that are not as heavily populated might as well stay home on election day because the inner cities and the liberal elite on the East and West coasts would take away their voice if it were by popular vote only.
No they wouldn't. Republicans have won half the popular votes the last 50 years, despite the way our system works. And anybody that abandoned the third of the people that are rural completely, would almost certainly lose the elections. The people on the coasts would get more time than the people in the middle, but only roughly corresponding to how many people there are now.
Who gets no influence in our elections now? Almost everybody. Over the last 3 months, Trump and Clinton only visited 15 states. Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Minnesota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Vermont, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Those are the places that are completely, 100% ignored by the current system.
I'm not going to advocate abolishing the electoral college, but your argument for keeping it is the one that I see the most. And I don't think it's a very persuasive argument.
If you look at the maps above you can see every sanctuary city where Clinton did well. You can see the areas that divide us on a moral perspective. You can see the areas that went for Clinton are states that rely on federal government help due to their leftist ideology promising crap they can't pay for, where their states are so far in the hole without federal aid they can't make it and it is putting a burden on those in these states that are working and carrying the load. They are also areas that are not business friendly and companies have been in an Exodus for years leaving them and taking their jobs with them heading for more business friendly states.
You look at all major cities that are predominantly Democrat whose citizens overwhelmingly rely on government welfare, and they went for Clinton. What the Democrats have done in the last several decades is addict people to entitlements instead of offering a better way. Now we have several in our society who think they are owed something with no effort on their part.
They are born into poverty usually because they are born to a single mother. 70% of Blacks today are born to single moms and no dads around.% Hispanics are at 55% and Whites are right behind them with 35% being born to single moms. Single mothers are the number one reason for poverty in our country. The left deals with it by providing multiple entitlements to these "families" so much so that now a married middle class family raising two kids both working makes less that what a single mother can collect in entitlements.
You want to know why Trump won? Everyday people out there keeping their nose clean both wife and husband with kids working and getting the shaft for trying to do things the right way. They have been watching their healthcare go through the roof and have been giving up vacations and other needs to make their bills because they do not qualify for government goodies. Yet, illegals, single moms, refugees get all these special goodies.
While the average Joe tries to figure out how to pay for his child's education, illegals, single moms, and refugees get special favors. ENOUGH is what the voters said. And that is just for starters.
These are all somewhat true facts, but miss the point I was trying to make. These maps showing how much greater area Trump won than Clinton are trying to make a point about how big Trump's win was. But Trump winning more square miles is meaningless.
If you want to argue that Trump won better people, that's fine, but I don't think that's what these maps making a big deal out of the square footage that Trump won are trying to do.