Electoral College Preserves Voting Power

I was discussing the origins and continued relevance of the Electoral College with my wife recently. While I understood that the original purpose of the Electoral College was to have well-informed and wise men choose the President, I had to admit that in its current form, the Electoral College seemed little more than an intermediary between the voters and the candidates. While I was able to think of some good reasons for keeping this institution, I could not think of a source that offered a vigorous defense. Yes, a big state like California could tip a direct election if enough of its voters got bribed. Yes, it would be easier for foreign powers to affect a direct election. But how, exactly, does the Electoral College protect us from such shenanigans?

Enter Alan Natapoff, the self-appointed defender and theoretician for the Electoral College. Natapoff was around back in 1969 when there was a serious push to get rid of the Electoral College. He defended it then, but realized he could not prove why it was good with any rigor. He went on to do so and published his results in an academic journal. In this article, Will Hively gives a good explanation, in layman's terms, of why Natapoff holds that Madison stumbled onto a good idea. By splitting the electorate up into districts, the influence of each vote is increased.

The original movement to kill the Electoral College is dead, but I urge my readers to brush up on this topic. We are at war and the Electoral College might some day save us from choosing a bad commander-in-chief.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Updated a link.