In defense of the Electoral College

The Electoral College gives unwarranted power to the less populated states!  So goes the argument with which more than 60% of the voting population agrees (thus the value of the Constitution).

The number of electors for a state is based upon the voting membership of that state in Congress – i.e., the number of representatives in the House plus the number of senators.  Congresspersons vary directly with population, but every state has the same number of senators. 

States like Wyoming (143,000 people per electoral vote) and North Dakota (174,000 people per electoral vote) punch above their weight, as Obama enjoys saying, in presidential elections.  In N.Y. and California, there are over 500,000 popular votes for every electoral vote. 

So shall we look at the E.C. as a mild form of affirmative action?  Enhancing very slightly the effect of the less educated working stiffs relative to the masses of lockstep bien pensants churned out in their hordes by the educational system supercharged by the mass media?

Perhaps we should look at some similar way to enhance the voting power of the military, active and retired.  Of course, that would take a constitutional amendment, and I don't want to open that box.  The 60% of the voters (both Rs and Ds) who want to demolish the Electoral College have not thought this through.  Thank God for the Constitution and the lads who wrote it.  As Franklin noted, they had created a Republic, a representative democracy. 

Of course, this allows for anomalies, as in 2000, when G.W. Bush lost the popular vote by 543,816.  In fact, that's happened three times before: Benjamin Harrison (electoral vote winner) vs. Grover Cleveland in 1888,
Rutherford B. Hayes (winner) in 1876 (Tilden won the popular vote by 264,292), and John Quincy Adams in 1824 (Andrew Jackson won the popular vote by 44,804).

Absent the E.C., it would be even easier than it is now for the coastal elites to steamroll the Great Unwashed in that void that we call Flyover Country.

Can we make a tortured analogy to the Republican nomination process vs. the Democrat?  The Dems worked the political machine in the back rooms and on private email servers, so there was no effective competition, certainly not from the center (what happened to Webb?).  The Rs let the people have their say, perhaps in bemused curiosity, assuming that no harm could be done.  The Dems know different.  They don't trust the people.  And they may be right.  The 50% who voted for Trump, of the 15% of Republicans who voted in the nomination, may have destroyed their party for a generation.  Arguably most if not all of the other candidates could have beaten Hillary without difficulty.

We are reminded of when Dick Tuck, the celebrated Democrat trickster, a regular Loki, ran for state senator in California with a platform that included "Just because people have died doesn't mean they don't still have [voting] rights."  As the tallies came in, he cautioned, "Just wait 'til the dead vote comes in."  When he lost, he famously said, "The people have spoken, the bastards!"