> I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals.

That was exactly the point of the Electoral College - that states would elect the president.

You may think that's a bad idea. That's fine. You may want to change it. But it's a really fundamental change to the architecture. If it's to be changed, it should be changed by a constitutional amendment, not just by a compact among the states.

No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferments" of the people.

Also, the framers expected that most of the time, there would be too many candidates for any to win a majority. In that case, the House would select a winner from the candidates.

A system where electors do not make their own decisions, and one candidate always wins a majority, was simply not conceived of.

https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm

This is the most easily digestible evidence, but Hamilton is obviously not the only one who thought this way. He is representing the position of most of the framers, that's why the system he describes here is what ended up in the constitution. Note that there is no mention at all of rural vs. urban, underrepresented communities, states' rights, anything like that. Those factors contributed to the creation of the Senate and the House, but not the electoral college. That was entirely due to the men writing the constitution not trusting the men they were allowing to vote.

> No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferments" of the people.

That was part of the purpose; a part that we have since mostly neutered. But the number of electors was definitely chosen to compromise between small and large (population) states.

Senate representation is apportioned constantly per state. House representation is apportioned approximately proportional to population. The electoral college is a compromise (sum) of these too.

States have gotten to choose how to select their electors, and most have chosen winner-take-all (in part because this is a strategy that is strategically powerful). So it remains a forum of state-chosen electors, with a weight that is a compromise between per-state and per-population representation, like it has always been.

> No, that was not the point, why do people keep saying this? The framers were very open about the purpose. They thought that the average voter could not be trusted to choose a president, and that a direct election would result in "tumult and disorder". Instead, the decision would be made by "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station", who would not be so easily swayed by the "heats and ferments" of the people.

So why, in your view, do the states get to appoint the electors?

I very much understand the point of the electoral college and the point of the NPV movement. And I don't necessarily disagree that a constitutional amendment would be a better way to change the policy.

So... the EC empowers the states, but the states shouldn't have power?

An individual voter in Wyoming should have more say over what happens in Wyoming than an individual voter in New York.

Given the geographic clustering of opinions, it is not adequate to give every individual equal say over every area.

The solution is federalism, which we already have; a Wyoming voter controls the Wyoming state government, which has power over things that are purely internal Wyoming concerns.

What incentive do rural states have to stay in the union if the federal government is controlled by populous state bullies? Wouldn't it be better for them to fragment into separate-but-open-border-countries like the EU?

Probably roughly the same incentives any state has ever had to join and remain in a federation. Things like free trade and movement among states and a combined military. One of the incentives to remain in a federation should not be the ability to disproportionately influence the federal government compared to other member states.

That's certainly fine for state-by-state issues, and it is the case for most of them, like state income tax, sales tax, most laws, etc. Unfortunately there's only one President, which is why this NPV issue concerns the presidential election and not anything else.

>I think the problem here is that you're portraying it as if cities or states are the agents making decisions, rather than individuals

Well yeah. There's a reason why it's called the United STATES.