Actually, no; I disagree. If we truly want the electoral college, then we should elect our senators with it as well. However, we don't do this. We elect our senators by popular vote.
I'm not sure what you mean. The significance of the Senate is that every state has two Senators regardless of their size. This was setup to give added power to smaller states. Otherwise, they wouldn't have joined. In fact, I'd bet that if there was a popularly elected Senate at the time the Constitution was written, they wouldn't have joined the union. The point is, you have to decide what's more important - having a big country, which means making compromises with the minority to keep the peace, or you can have the Republic of New York. If it was truly beneficial for the bigger states to be their own countries, they would have done it.
As far as deciding who will fill which office, popular vote seems to be the only clear-cut way to do this, with a federal official who leads all the states in the Union being elected by all the people in the Union, as a whole, regardless of state. However, the Senate (which was the truly ingenious idea and whose members, as I said, are elected in a statewide popular vote to represent said state) serves as a check/balance against the chief executive officer; all states, after having popularly appointed their two representatives, have equal representation in a national assembly. This is where the less populous states' interests are served.
That's partially true, but that power has been greatly watered down because originally the state legislatures selected their state's Senators. It was changed in the early 20th century.
There is a tension that has to be balanced in society; the right of each citizen to choose their leaders, and the prevention of rule by a mob of idiots who change their minds with a change of the weather. You need the first freedom so as to release social tensions, but you need the latter so that social stability is maintained. A pure democratic system at all levels simply doesn't work; it doesn't protect minority rights, and it leads to neverending social strife which serves no one's interests. A purely democratic system would essentially revert back to a dictatorial regime once one particular mob managed to gain sufficient control of the system and then rewrote the rules preventing anyone else from being elected.
But to elect our cheif official (or any official) with the knowledge that more people in the union actually voted for the other guy is ludicrous.
It's ludicrous if it happens all the time with the *loser* getting a much larger percentage of the popular vote. In over two hundred years of the republic, this has only happened twice, and by less than 1% both times. That might look like a messed up system to some, but this system hasn't generated a Hitler or Lenin, unlike failed attempts by other countries at democracy.
The only time anyone finds the system ludicrous is when their guy loses. Curiously, the folks complaining that the will of the majority wasn't followed in 2000 didn't say a peep about the majority voting against Clinton in 1992 and 1996.
I see nothing wrong with the interests of us "big city folk" taking precedence. Frankly our interests are more important.
Let's analyze this... What you're saying is that we could tax the hell out of farmers, ranchers, force "city folk" culture upon rural families against their will, and pass all manner of budgets that they would pay for while letting the city slickers off the hook. You could pass regulations that allow city businesses to pollute rural lands and water sources. I say, "No thanks." We once had that; it was called fiefdom. You won't have a country of this size hanging together by taking that approach. You'd have the entire middle and southern sections of the US secede, and that certainly wouldn't help California if their products are charged tariffs when being sold to Arizona or Oklahoma. This setup won't work, it would provoke civil war, and the city slicker winners would have to impose a dictatorship to prevent unrest.