The United States is a union of nominally sovereign states. You see this in crisis situations -- States cannot declare bankruptcy, for example.

The electoral college is a mechanism used for these states to select a president (the only nationally elected office) in a representative manner.

Not just nominal! The Constitution ensures the sovereignty of the states by restricting the federal government to a limited set of enumerated powers (among them: foreign policy, national defense, regulation of interstate commerce) with all other powers retained by the states (10th Amendment).

> a limited set of enumerated powers (among them: foreign policy, national defense, regulation of interstate commerce)

Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of "interstate commerce" is roughly "any other powers they might care to have". The Tenth Amendment has essentially been superseded by the Commerce Clause since the New Deal.

A significant subset of people in the US insist the federal government has overstepped its powers, using "interstate commerce" to inappropriately expand federal authority. With the forthcoming change of federal government, in the years ahead it's likely there will be some paring back of federal overreach. Whether that's a good or bad development remains to be determined.

US states were intended to be semi-autonomous regions which reflected cultural distinctions of residents inhabiting the original colonies. The different "flavors" of American culture have more or less persisted, even in today's mobile population there are still nuances that make the cultures of states unique.

> With the forthcoming change of federal government, in the years ahead it's likely there will be some paring back of federal overreach.

That's wishful thinking. The President-elect has already announced reforms heretofore considered well beyond the President's legal authority.

The commonly-heard Republican slofan of "States' Rights" is only heard when Democrats are in power. (And likely vice-vers

"US states were intended to be semi-autonomous regions which reflected cultural distinctions of residents inhabiting the original colonies."

Like slavery.

The electoral college makes a lot more sense when you think about electing a President that represents the states, rather than the people.

Because the American states have a tradition of autonomy that dates back far before the Revolution. That is why American states are states with their own citizens (think drivers licenses) and not simply administrative regions as they would be in other large and diverse countries like China and Russia.

I don't know about the Russian system, but the Chinese system is much closer to individuals being citizens of different regions than the U.S. system. Residency in the U.S. is simple to change and unrestricted, and most effects are immediate (though some in-state tuition requirements can take longer).

In contrast, in China it is difficult for rural workers to change their Hukou, and as such they are often stuck with major disadvantages even after they move. A rural worker in Shanghai might live as a second class citizen there for years, because they're not considered to be officially Shanghainese. This isn't the case in the U.S.

But is the registration system in China managed separately by different provinces because they want to control and/or prevent migration, or by the national government because it wants to control migration?

If it's the latter, it's not a sign of federalism - quite the opposite, in fact.

Russian system is more complicated than that - the "federal subjects", as the regions are known, are not merely administrative, but have some actual powers. They may have regional laws (although criminal law belongs on the federal level), may collect taxes, set their own system of local government (how the regional parliament looks etc).

They can also have other languages designated as official on their territory, in addition to Russian, and implement an educational system that teaches those languages. They have their own constitutions, enforced by regional constitutional courts.

One particularly curious case is that of Tatarstan. It nearly declared independence in 1990 (some argue that it actually did - it made a "declaration of sovereignty": http://1997-2011.tatarstan.ru/english/00002028.html). In 1992, it adopted its own constitution on a referendum, which also described it as a "sovereign state".

Then, intense negotiations with the Russian federal government followed, which resulted in an 1994 agreement (https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http://fao...) with an unwieldy title of "On Delimitation of Jurisdictional Subjects and Mutual Delegation of Powers between Bodies of Public Authority of the Russian Federation and Bodies of Public Authority of the Republic of Tatarstan". The constitution of Tatarstan was then amended with a curious definition of the federal arrangement as follows:

"The Republic of Tatarstan is a democratic constitutional State associated with the Russian Federation"

i.e. not a "member of" - although according to the federal constitution, it is a federal subject, same as any other. It also has some other special guarantees - for example, its borders cannot be changed without its consent. And the whole arrangement can only be amended by mutual agreement.

Of course, given the present state of affairs in Russia, it is unclear to what extent any of these theoretical political powers that federal subjects may enjoy are actually realized.