The strongest argument in favor of the Electoral College against direct elections of US presidents is that direct democracies tend toward tyranny (aka “tyranny of the majority”). Direct election of presidents would encourage candidates to ignore sparsely populated regions and focus more on garnering votes in vote-rich areas. Under a directly elected president, residents of suburban and rural communities would likely feel more disenfranchised than they already do in the Electoral College system. Whole states would become politically irrelevant, as the concerns and political inclinations of urban voters would increasingly dominate the national political agenda. To simplify a bit: the big city would ride roughshod over the countryside.
The Electoral College system mitigates the excesses of majoritarian rule by giving less populated states a bit more influence in election outcomes. The Electoral College system forces candidates and presidents to attempt a transregional appeal because no single region of the country is sufficient to guarantee victory.
Of course, many would argue that the one person-one vote system is still the best. After all, that’s what democracy is all about: power to the people, so the more people, the more power. The majority should be calling the shots.
Next up: a couple electoral maps that illustrate a major problem with this narrative.