[quote="Erich, post:3, topic:203088"]
Last time I checked, I lived in one of the United States of America, I'm not one of the "United Citizens of America."
Eliminating the Electoral College will eliminate our federal system of government and representation and and would lead to the nationalization of our government - to the detriment of the States. The President would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones.
If the Founding Fathers had intended for the President to be directly elected, they would have written it into the Constitution. But of course they didn't do that, seeing as they intended to create a government limited in scope and powers.
Power at the national level was split among the three branches, each reflecting a different constituency. Representatives were directly elected by the people (they still are), Senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures (they aren't anymore, but in my opinion they should be again), and the President was elected by Electors who were appointed by each state (for the time being they still are).
Power was also divided between the national government and the states (though we've certainly been seeing less and less of that in the last 75 years or so). There's a lot to be said for federalism... look at all the regional conflicts that trouble large and diverse nations like India, China and Russia. The Electoral College system at least forces presidential candidates to seek support nationwide, thereby making sure no state is left behind.
Direct election of the president would only reflect the will of a majority. In contrast, the Electoral College provides representation for both the population at large and the states. It thereby tempers and limits the power of majority rule.
I wonder if the activists who are seeking to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president (presumably because the EC violates "one person, one vote," as opined by Sen. Diane Feinstein on Larry King Live) are also willing to abolish the Senate for the same reason. Wyoming, with a population of 533,000, gets the same number of Senators as California with its population of almost 37 million. No "one person, one vote" there... where's the consistency?
The founding father also didn't intend for universal suffrage. There's a reason why only (free) men who held property could vote - they believed that only those with means and a stake in the country would be responsible enough to vote. Also, the founding fathers believed that the average citizen is not educated enough to be a responsible voter. Those men who had means were the most likely to be educated. Hence, we have a group of well-informed people on the electoral college. I can't say that I blame them, but for some reason it doesn't sit right with me. Sometimes I hate to agree with Sir Winston Churchill who said something to the effect of "The greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute discussion with the average voter."