I will say this much about this debate, few people on this board understand the EC. Not only did the founders not trust the poeple (there are just too many voters with about 2 brain cells a piece who should do their country a favor and not vote), but they didn't want only the major population centers to determine the presidential election.
Do you honestly think any presidential candidate would pay any attention to Wyoming, the Dakotas, or the People's Republic of Vermont if their were no EC giving them any real input in the election. Some might argued they are largely ignored now besides maybe a primary election or two but just wait when our presidential election is simply decide by New York city, LA, Chicago, Houston and Dallas (and maybe a hand full of other cities).
That's exactly right as far as the reason the College exists. And I tend to favor keeping things pretty much the same. I do agree that eliminating the EC entirely would cause all but very close elections to be decided by the largest urban areas--and would heavily favor the Democrats. A third option in my mind seems best if we're going to change anything. Getting rid of winner take all and dividing EC votes proportionately according the the popular vote in each state would certainly make things a little more reflective of popular opinion without eliminating entirely the role that states play in an election.
