It was the founding fathers who fought to have equal representation, and they got it during elections in their early country and had an early form of the electoral college while still colonial to ensure that everybody had a voice to be heard. As Thomas paine (a vital founding father) states "it will be found beat to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending it's proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this depends the strength of government and the happiness of the governed" (Paine, common sense)
This is absolutely relevant to those who have expressed anti-american views about abolishing a system that guarantees representation to the "common man" from every state. What the Democrats were hoping for is elextors from states that voted Republican > Democrat to act AGAINST the will of the people from that respective state. The asinine argument of "Hillary won the popular vote!" Holds no water against what each state has voted for individually. Democrats have population heavy states like California and new York to help boost the popular vote almost automatically, so were it not for the electoral college, everyone in between the east and west states would never have proper representation. This is what our founding fathers wanted for their people. They wanted to make sure everyone had a voice. The fact that so many were OK to try and change the groundwork laid down by the most important people in our country try is absolutely mind boggling and upsetting. Its worrying how quickly will turn against something like the electoral college, how soon will those same people turn against the Constitution altogether?
Labels for news sites. Blatant censorship. All forms of social media seem to be slowly and sometimes subtly taking away freedom of speech, and to an extent freedom of the press. But for what purpose? To make sure you're on the right side.
The fake news fiasco is snowballing into something many never thought possible. People fact checking every news source now. Millions of people questioning the legitimacy of news stories everywhere. But what is the purpose for all this? Simple. It's all to openly misinform people. Let's say A Russian news agency broke the news story about the China seizing of an unmanned sub, but that has been labelled as fake news. People would not take the story as seriously as they should, until another source prints the story. Why create such a schism among the general public? To keep them at odds with each other? Look on Facebook and you can see tons of arguing in almost every story a news organization posts.
It's no longer a case of if, but when WW3 is started, be it with Russia or China, or even some wild card countries, this leash on news media will ultimately keep those who dare question their masters in line, while burying anyone who won't buy into the bullshit. It's all going according to their plans.
When searching for the truth, make sure you have looked everywhere...