This may be more “fodder” than you wish or need, but here’s what I said about this topic in an earlier discussion (just in case anyone is still interested :-).
There’s no doubt about the history, and how the electoral college came about. What remains is the question, “Is it fair?” (That’s a value judgment, and in my opinion value judgments are not susceptible to proof the way questions of fact are.) The argument on the anti side is that a person’s vote in a big state should be worth just as much as a person’s vote in a small state.
The argument on the pro side is that people in small states wouldn’t have agreed to join with large states if population alone was going to determine representation (and would seek independence if already joined — that’s what so many separatist civil wars are about). In other words, is it fair for people to be ruled by distant larger populations whose interests may differ considerably?
That’s partially what the American Revolution was about, and the host of other wars of independence that have been fought around the world for the last couple of centuries. Also, to make the point more obvious, I brought up the analogy of the United States merging with China. In that instance, should the vote of an American be worth more than the vote of a Chinese? I suppose not, but would you want to be joined with China under those conditions? Would it be fair for Americans to be ruled by the choices of more numerous Chinese?
The differences between Americans in large states and small states are not that great, but they are considerable.
I will assume that I can use this also?
We must, as Americans, define the role of the EC and eliminate “modern interpretation” of their task, such that vis-a-vis, ideological interpretation wins the day.
Si?