The electoral college is a relic of the 18th century that gives disproportionate weight to voters in smaller states and focuses attention on a dozen “swing” ones. The videographic, below, explains more.
Yeah there is really no good reason to keep the EC except… whichever party does propose to abolish it would certainly lose FL and OH in the next election meaning… it won’t get passed.
Yes, clearly the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. That’s why states use a system similar to the electoral college to elect their governors, cities to elect their mayors, and so forth. Other well-governed nations also use it to elect their presidents.
Oh wait, they don’t. No one uses anything similar to electoral college anywhere. No one is promoting the use of anything similar anywhere. Because it is clearly inferior to a direct election.
As to the specific objections:
1. Fraud. It’s easier to manufacture the votes needed to swing a state election than it is to manufacture the votes needed to swing a national election, so in fact, the electoral college, which depends on narrow state contests, is more likely to be swayed by fraud than a national popular vote.
2. Proportionality. No state would have any more weight than any other, as no state would have any weight: whether a candidate wins Texas or California is irrelevant, as only the national popular vote matters.
Yes, the Electoral College is left over from the Founding. But what would we have without it? A system much more prone to voter fraud, and a system that would give disproportionate weight to bigger states, and they would also dominate the process as swing states do now. Doesn’t sound much better to me.