Electoral College"

[limitles]

you change to make an improvement
No founding father envisioned the absurdity of that process today.
They had other things on their mind, such as who should be allowed to vote.
Reeks of democracy, no?

How is it an improvement? Because the side you like better has an advantage?

Nope... not how it works. The US is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy. This was on purpose, as the founding fathers did not like the idea of the "tyranny of the majority" ruling the country.

I always tell people to picture the US as a co-op 50 separate governments, rather than one giant government, and that makes the electoral college more understandable.

The Dems whine about anything which is temporarily not in their favor. Notice they were fine with a 9-justice Supreme Court for our entire lifetimes, yet suddenly they wanted to add seats as soon as the Republicans got a 6-3 majority.

Similar to how Democrats constantly adjust how much they support free speech. For years they were pro-free-speech when such a position was politically expedient. Then once right wing speech became powerful online, suddenly Democrats became very anti-free-speech, wanting it suppressed via nonsense "hate speech" and "misinformation" laws. Then they want free speech again when left wing anti-Semites are harassing the joos on college campuses.

Toby Keith (RIP) said it best when he stopped being a Democrat after 2008, claiming they "don't stand for anything anymore". Truth!

I don't know the figures but I'm guessing the majority of today's democracies agree that majority rules.
The decision of a population can never be considered a form of tyranny.

Who ever wrote that was either an idiot or very comfortable with the current situation. There is no work around or loophole for the decision of the majority. Except in America

Your founding fathers were the power players of the day. The conditions they laid down for personal rights also included components that protected their own status. Electing a head of state against the will of the majority sounds like such a component. Your fore fathers also established who were qualified voters
Women (half the population) among many others were not considered. Calling it a republic is irrelevant and meaningless

There is no protection for disinformation or defamation provided by free speech.
The anonymity that exists today on public platforms provides a loophole for those
abusing the concept of free speech