[throwaway729]

> the individual states were essentially their own countries with individual governments and leadership

The debate over the scope of the federal government dates back to before the end of the revolutionary war, and was a central topic of debate in the drafting and ratification process for the Constitution.

Remember that our first attempt at forming a country erred toward a weaker federal government, and was more-or-less an abject failure.

> Where is it stated exactly what the purpose of the electoral college was, in the Founding Fathers' own words?

Federalist 68, in which almost every argument makes literally no sense when compared to direct democracy.

That paper is mostly arguing for the electoral college over e.g. the "Governors" or "congressional" plans, leaving the infeasibility of direct election as a foregone conclusion.

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.

Which begs the question: why not just do the obvious thing?

> The only way they could make the deal work with all of them was to ensure that no one state could "overrule" the others

Why don't we come out and be explicit about it -- the only way to make it work was the make sure that slave states were comfortable that they'd be able to retain political power while continuing to subjugate a huge portion of their population.

> If smaller states could be bullied by larger states, the term "united states" loses a quite a bit of its meaning.

Larger by what measure?

The slave states that were opposed to direct election and are today characterized as "rural" weren't actually significantly less populous than the northern states. Virginia -- a slave state -- was the most populous.

It's just that a huge number of their men were black, and so didn't count in a direct election.

So, the whole "rural / less populous states need a voice in presidential elections" thing is complete and utter horse shit. The actual issue was that "very populous states that choose to treat a big portion of the population as sub-humans need a vote controlled by whites but with power proportional to their entire population".

[13years]

Those view points aren't without debate.

https://fee.org/articles/the-accidental-genius-of-the-electo...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/...

[throwaway729]

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.

[13years]

>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.

[throwaway729]

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."

[CamperBob2]

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.