What are the arguments for the electoral college, explained, do not include arguments against the electoral college?
Q: What are the arguments for the electoral college, explained, not the argument against arguments against the electoral college?The US is a federation of individual sovereign States. One of the objectives of the Electoral College system was to have the States, not Congress, decide who serves as President. Article II, Section 1, reads:2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The 23rd Amendment gave additional Electors to Washington DC ("The District constituting the seat of government of the United States") equal to the number of Electors they'd have if it were a State. That is currently 3 Electors, but could be more. The Amendment stipulates that they shall never have less than the least populous State. So, if it were to happen that House Apportionment ended up with no State having less than 2 Representatives (and thus 4 Electors), then DC would have 4 Electors as well.There was, as I understand it, a concern that a system like in the UK, where the Prime Minister is a member of Parliament, would dilute the Separation of Powers between those two branches of government (in that the President would serve at the will of Congress and thus would be subordinate to that body).There was also a desire to address the risk of "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" from adversely influencing the election process. As Federalist 68 put it:They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.So, why not a popular vote? Undue influence of more populous States over the interests of less populous States. The system actually favors larger States in that they have more Electors than smaller States (California, for example, has 55 Electoral votes whereas Wyoming only has 3). The 12 most populous States, if they were to band together, could select the President (the last time I did this exercise, they had 281 votes between them).The Electoral map, based on recent voting patterns, favors Democrats. Of those 12 States, 4 are reliably blue (CA, WA, NY, IL), and 4 are usually so (MI, OH, PA, VA). There are only 2 reliably red States (TX, GA), and the remaining 2 tend to swing (FL, NC).Yet, Clinton lost to Trump and Democrats want to abolish the Electoral College one way or another. That begs the question. Why? If the Electoral map skews in the Democrat's favor, how did they end up losing the White House?Because Clinton failed to reach out to States in the rust belt. She took them for granted as her "blue wall," and barely campaigned there (she skipped Wisconsin altogether). Trump, on the other hand, recognized their plight, took it seriously, and promised to do something about it. He was rewarded for it, and it was enough to give him the win.Therein lies the point. Presidential candidates cannot afford to concentrate in large States alone. They have to reach out to the nation as a whole. Smaller States don't have much of a say, but they have enough that they have to be taken seriously.I wonder. If people who argue so vigorously for a popular vote would be willing to split their votes within their States according to how their citizens voted? For example, if the Democrat wins 64% of the vote in California, and the Republican wins 36%, would they be willing to split their Electors, giving the Democrat candidate 35 Electors and the Republican 20? No? I wonder why?The system gives smaller States a slightly improved say in who will be President. It isn't much, and it rarely matters, but it can affect the election. That's the idea.