A simplified explanation of the necessity for an electoral system for people who pretend not to understand it

If Trump lost the electoral college but got the majority of votes, would you want him to be President?

You have no clue what you're talking about.

The electoral college encourages pandering to swing states and areas with a lot of electoral votes, which is what happens. It doesn't address the issue you're discussing at all.

Also, your example is completely flawed. You're contrasting the current electoral system with a "balanced" electoral system.

If there was no electoral system at all, no votes based on areas, then everything you're talking about would be irrelevant. A per-person voting system would remove the incentive to campaign in specific areas.

Also, your concept of "ignored" is silly. All you're talking about is where politicians travel to during campaigning, where they make empty promises.

The addressing of actual local needs is done at the state and county and city level. Presidential candidates aren't out there giving away "a bunch of money," they aren't giving away anything. They are just seeking attention from swing states and looking for the highest concentration of electoral votes.

Your analogy here is absolutely insane, literally.

The Electoral College reflects the same political compromise found in Article I of the Constitution. It's nothing more or less than a means of balancing the interests of proportional representation with the principles of federalism and the co-sovereignty of the states. Without it, there would not have been a "United States of America" in the first place.

Well, that would be Grandpa's choice not trying to appeal to the families with one, two, or three kids. And he will reap the consequences for doing so. He may come within 1 vote of the other grandpa (who did choose to appeal to each family) and may lose out by that one vote.

It's about choice - the candidate's choice, and the voter's choice. It should not be about electoral colleges. That's antiquated.

You can argue that the electoral college is necessary when it treats all parties relatively equally, but when it clearly gives one party an advantage over another, that is when it either needs to be done away with or revamped. Right now, there is absolutely no reason to keep the electoral college the way it is. I would even say it's corrupt to do so.

The problem isn't even the electoral college. The problem is 'winner takes all' despite never truly winning them all. A possible fix could be to divide every state by their electoral votes, and then give each candidate the same percentage of electoral votes that they got in total votes. You could even divide it unevenly in close battles like in Michigan. Instead of dividing Michigan's 16 EVs to give Trump and Hillary 8, Trump could get 9 (because he won) and Hillary 7.

You might think that would remove the purpose of the Electoral College. Well, you'd be wrong. The purpose of the EC is to give smaller states more power by having less people equal one electoral vote compared to larger states. That would still remain the case. Small states would still have a smaller amount of people equaling an electoral vote. The major difference is that it would no longer be winner takes all.

Right now, winner takes all is what is killing democracy. It's bad in the general election, and it's even worse in primaries. Primaries are absolutely disgusting right now. And on top of it, the democrats made it worse with their stupid system of superdelegates.

right now gradpa lied to all of them and even though your preferred system is in place, he fucked them all no matter if they have 1 or 200 children, unless they are filthy rich.

"This is why we have an electoral system..."
No it's not. You don't know history. It was a flawed compromise to appease the states that depended on slavery.

"...don't want to be and shouldn't be ignored"
Newsflash! Most of America - large cities and small towns - are ignored because presidential candidates concentrate their campaigns on the few swing states. Two-thirds of the campaigning in 2016 was limited to 6 swing states. For instance, swing state Florida had 71 campaign events, Alabama had 0, Idaho had 0, Kansas had 0, New York had 0, Louisiana had 0, New Jersey had 0, swing state Ohio had 48, Kentucky had 0, Montana had 0, California had 1... you see where I'm going with this. Your theory doesn't hold water. Link to total state list:
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

"How often do you think either Grandparents would bother trying to appeal to the families with 1,2 or 3 kids?"
Your example sux. The reason is because each kid doesn't have one equal vote. The family with 1 kid gets 5 votes. The family with 5 kids only gets 1 vote.
Then to make it more of a confusing mess, two families always vote for grandfather, but two families always vote against him making it an equal vote. One swing (state) family votes either way so grandfather can ignore the four families who always vote a certain way and concentrate most of his attention on swing(state) family.

I wish people like yourself would stop rationalizing inequality. For instance, a person in Wisconsin has 4 votes per 1 vote in New York. To make it worst, people in New York receive less in Federal dollars than someone in Wisconsin.

Unequal vote:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

Unequal federal tax distribution:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/