By now, you’ve heard the disgruntled leftists parroting the sentiment that the Electoral College is an archaic relic that is either racist (what else?), or has obviously outlived any usefulness it may have once had. Therefore, in the interest of progress, it must be abolished.
Outgoing California Senator Barbara Boxer has recently introduced a doomed-to-fail bill meant to do just that.
This argument is, of course, painfully dim and tiresome. The Electoral College is one of many safeguards against what de Tocqueville would later describe as the “tyranny of the majority” that our Founders feared, or more specifically, the threat of a concentrated majority in a state that happened to be more populous than another. After all, it’s doubtful that Rhode Island would have chosen to ratify the Constitution and join these United States if they believed that their state’s unique desires at the federal level would be perpetually overruled by the much more populous New York, for instance.
In the simplest terms, the United States was conceived as a voluntary union of sovereign states which were unified under the limited federal government which bound them — one which could only act within the very strict guidelines enumerated in our Constitution. It is very much by design that the prerogative of each sovereign state is influential in the election of our president, and the Electoral College helps to ensure that.
But I won’t beat that dead horse. There is ample reading material to inform interested parties about the wisdom of the Electoral College, in contrast to a strictly popular vote where highly-populated urban strongholds located in a minority of states might disenfranchise the will of the large majority of other states in presidential elections.