Why? That system was created in days when communications were physically moved from place to place. With the internet, everyone can learn about the candidates and don't need another "representative" to go and elect the President.

The speed of communication was not the reason for the Electoral College, the power equation was. The Constitutional Conventioneers derived the EC from three sources: the Papal Conclave, the Prince-Electorate of the Holy Roman Empire, and the political turmoil of the Roman Late Republic period. What they sought to create was a body composed of people who were 'Cardinals' of the Republic, making a solemn decision, geographically distributed so as to be without the threat of interference from the existing government, and electing a person without direct appeal to the masses of people, understanding that indirect election makes an executive inherently weak politically.

A President elected entirely indirectly has no mandate to shove through his agenda and this is what was intended! He's not elected by Congress so he owes them nothing. He's not elected by the people so he cannot claim a mandate. He's elected by a body which immediately ceases to exist so he's also not beholden to those who elected him.

He has no political capital whatsoever. This is a good thing.

Just because we've developed an Imperial Presidency doesn't mean we should endorse it!

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,453 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

Yes, SE. That does seem to be the case. Jason, who in America would prefer this type of voting? How could we realistically go back?

The problem with our political process today is it has become nationalized: people are voting for school boards and town councils based upon a candidate's views of the PATRIOT Act and/or Obamacare and/or Israel and/or Gay Rights. And the one thing which binds the national parties together is the Presidential election. Denationalize that, and the national parties disintegrate and parochialize: A conservative in California will no longer be beholden to what a group of churches in rural Virginia define as 'conservative'.

The EC was created to prevent the situation we have right now. It is simply that no one with social authority has sought to make the case.

Abandoning the only check we have on the power of a President's political capital, simply because we're not using it, is absurd and folly.

I like your points, but how do you get the check back into place? Why would Americans want to go back to that style of EC when they already prefer majority rule?

It would take someone with considerable social authority of his own, like a President, to lay out the case, and as part of a general refactoring of our unwritten constitutional conventions. Or perhaps the next Ross Perot to make it a populist position.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.

In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree that, at most, only 6-12 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. At most, 12 states will determine the election. Candidates will not care about at least 76% of the voters-- voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and in 16 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning could be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as soccer mom voters in Ohio.