10. Reform the Electoral College?

.... Recently we’ve heard renewed calls to abolish the electoral college, or to reform it, in favor of the popular vote. But before seeking to change it, we should understand why it was constructed in the manner it was:
.
.... The electoral votes of each state reflect its total number of Senators and Representatives, though different persons, called 'electors', who will serve as their man-for-man substitutes. In our votes, we are actually selecting the electors who will, if selected, vote for the presidential candidate we’ve supported. And through this concept we see three principles emerging:

.... First, that the electoral college represents, not only the populous, but the states themselves as entities, just as the Federal Legislature (should). Therefore, abolishing the electoral college would have the same flaw as the 17th Amendment, which tends to mute the voice of the state governments and disturbs the balance of powers.
.
.... Second: our founding fathers mistrusted the machinations of Washington politicians since their station, but not their persons (thus electors), would represent the states and the people in this regard.
.
.... Third, our founders did not want the President chosen strictly on the basis of popular majorities, but wanted other concerns, such as regional issues, to have a fair voice as well. For example, the mountain states have particular needs based on their geographical conditions, weather, economy, etc. Yet sunny California alone, with its coastal economy, has a far greater population than all of those states combined, and would always tend to overshadow them. In that sense, a strict one-man-one-vote policy could lead to a condition known as ‘the tyranny of the majority’, so a partial counter-balance was deemed essential.

.... In our present system, every state except Nebraska and Maine delivers their state's electoral votes in a winner-takes-all arrangement. This, too, empowers the state governments, and forces presidential candidates to attend to that state's concerns – or at least, as long as they think they have a chance for winning that state. But if not, it will be neglected both in the campaign and in the election aftermath. Ironically, a state that is considered a 'sure thing' will likewise be neglected by both sides. This leads to the only legitimate adjustment that we might consider for the electoral college, which we will discuss in the following post.