Isn't the vote for president in each state democratic? And isn't each states electoral power relative to its numbers? Then what's the difference?
We may get the occasional popular/electoral schism, but basically it's the same thing. Defenders base their arguments on tradition and appeal to authority--the founders wanted it, so it must be good.
I don't think it makes a difference either way. The electoral system merely puts federalist lipstick on a nationalist pig.
Your lack of understanding of the function of the Electoral College is profound.
Using just a raw, direct election means that the biggest population centers get to dictate who the POTUS is. In modern America, that means that the coastal, liberal, urban voters would get their marxist choice every time and the other 47 or so states would mean nothing.
Without going into specific detail, the Electoral College makes it possible for the minority populations of the “flyover” states to have at least a shot at having a say in the outcome, meaning that the POTUS is chosen by a consensus of as many states as possible and not just the most heavily populated urban areas.
This brilliant concept is EXTREMELY important to the health of the Republic and is why George Soros and all other marxists want the Electoral College to disappear so that the marxist urban centers can always choose the POTUS based simply on raw population size and desire to redistribute wealth to those population centers.
It makes a huge difference. Each state has a number of electors to the EC equal to their number of representatives plus their number of senators.
The EC has the same weighting as Congress, where the House is based on population, and the Senate is two senators per state regardless of population.
If you really believe what you posted, you should also advocate abolishing the US Senate. And Al Gore would have been president in 2000 without the EC.