Respectfully, the first article does not refute a single statement in the post you're replying to, which was about the historical reason for the electoral college. It merely justifies the electoral college from first principles in a modern context. It even says as much in its title.

The second article also fails to refute anything I've said. A direct vote was ruled out because of slavery -- the article says nothing about that. Once a direct vote was was ruled out, Federalist 68 basically explains why you'd want a college over the competing alternatives.

But the key move is ruling out direct democracy, not preferring one among the N bad alternatives. And the article never explains why a direct vote would've been ruled out. It's painfully clear what the reason for doing so was.

>A lot of founding fathers would've preferred a direct vote. See for example Anti Federalist 72. Using google you can also find quotes from Madison, for example, arguing that a direct vote would obviously be best.

Although true, this is true as a point in time statement. In the end, they were convinced of the alternative argument.

As I said in my original post, "Appealing to their ultimate compromise is a strange argument, especially since the original political motivations have largely become either irrelevant or reprehensible."

The fact is, the US's population distribution rules out direct democracy as a fair solution. We need the EC. It's true that the EC gives the hayseeds in the flyover states a disproportionate voice in government. But without it, the so-called coastal elites in a few large cities would be absolute dictators. If another civil war is what you want, that sounds like a good way to make one happen at some point.

Like the poster near the beginning of the thread said, the problem isn't really who wields Federal power, or who decides; the problem is that there's too much of it.