The Electoral College as an institution has been throughly debunked by [George Edwards](https://books.google.com/books?id=xrzc_jh_g0oC&lpg=PR1&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false
5% of California's population is rural (1.9 million people). New York State has a 12% rural population (2.3 million people). That's more than the **total** population of North Dakota (0.67 million) or Wyoming (0.56) or Montana (0.99).
That's plenty of farmers and ranchers and miners and loggers whose votes don't get counted either and you are telling me that the Electoral College protects rural voters? SMDH.
Still a terrible explanation of "why it's relevant" - "firmly decided" states are still firmly decided and get no attention. The only reason presidential candidates pay any attention to New Hampshire and Iowa are the quirks of political history. They don't pay any attention to Vermont or Nebraska.
I stopped reading when he got to the Tenth Amendment, because he’s making a common but simple and very significant mistake. The text says the federal government is limited to those powers granted in the Constitution. It carefully does *not* say the federal government is limited to powers *expressly* granted. The framers considered this and rejected it. Implied powers of the federal government that aren’t explicitly mentioned do exist, as the Supreme Court has recognized for a very long time; the Tenth Amendment is not to the contrary.
Awful explanation and not even an original one at that. This is *the* argument for the Electoral College that gets regurgitated on every thread like this. The whole argument is essentially that majority rule is flawed, so minority rule is a better option.
It silences a lot of facts, such as:
1. This country has changed a lot since 1787.
2. The Electoral College was designed to give proportional representation, not for states to automatically give all their votes to the winner in their state (though they were and are entitled to).
3. It was a way for states with high slave populations to gain additional representation. They could count slaves as 3/5 of a person to gain more representation in the Electoral College, but didn't have to let these slaves vote.
4. It disenfranchises urban citizens, and people justify this by saying that rural people deserve more representation even if they make up less of the population.
It's not complicated. Land doesn't vote, people do. I'm not less of a human for living somewhere with more people.