The Democrats have been objecting to it continuously since Al Gore lost the election.
Oh I remember. I remember how they were fine with the rules as they were until things didn't go their way. Interesting that!
Sure I can. And so can you with a five-second Google search.
Except that article doesn't link the two arguments, which has been my whole point. She can think the electoral college should be replaced, she can think Trump was an illegitimate president, but until you (or she) provide a quote of her linking those two ideas directly, no, you continue to defend her election denialism. She's spoken more about Russian hacking/collusion than the EC, and in conversations about Trump's legitimacy. It seems pretty clear what she's actually talking about, you just keep trying to deflect.
You mean another one from a hyper-partisan outlet, lamenting the results of an election which didn't go their way? I'm shocked, shocked!
The primary reason for its continued existence is momentum
Again, you keep leaving out important points... like the fact quite a few states like the system as it is, independent of momentum.
That said, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has the potential to work around that design flaw
I'm familiar, and what you call a flaw, I and the framers call a feature.
subject to getting enough states to sign on.
... and the courts not interceding, which lets face it, is pretty likely given the current arrangement.