Critics say the electoral college erases some people's voices.
But majority rule already erases the voice of the losing minority. The flaw in the electoral college is a flaw in any system that doesn't require unanimity.
See also Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which shows that all possible electoral rules are irrational.
And as Buchanan and Tullock show in The Calculus of Consent, there is rarely any unanimous "public will." So it is pointless to expect democracy to deliver a public mandate or reflect the popular will.
Instead, the most we can expect of a democratic electoral rule is that it delivers acceptable results. It is a piece of machinery intended to accomplish certain objectives. The best we can hope for is getting the best results at a given cost, or getting a given result at the least cost.
We need to stop talking about whether democracy represents everyone, because it is literally impossible for any system to represent everyone unless it requires literal unanimity. Instead, we must view democracy as a tool for accomplishing a concrete purpose. Either the system works, or it doesn't. And either the purposes are just and legitimate, or they aren't. E.g., if the purpose of the system is to deliver piped water and wired electricity to everyone, and it does so, then mission accomplished - even if not everyone voted. But if the purpose of the system is to exploit racial minorities to benefit the majority, then the system is illegitimate - even if everyone's vote was counted.
