First and foremost, the Founding Fathers deeply distrusted mob rule (which France justified about a year after the US Constitution was ratified.) A few days ago I even ran across the suggestion they INTENDED the Electoral College to regularly deadlock and throw the presidential election into the House, where it would be decided by mature educated federal legislators rather than the people. US Senators were not even chosen by popular vote until 1913, but by state legislators. In other words, the US has had a federal income tax longer than it has had popularly elected Senators. The US is and has always been a constitutional republic, not a democracy; the fact Strom Thurmond got elected to the Senate for a half century straight (and even won Electoral Votes in 1948) nicely illustrates why.

They also wanted to give presidents nominal mandates even in very tight elections. It is hard for presidents to use the bully pulpit if they only win by 1.5%, but it is a different matter if they can say, "40 of the 50 states stand with me," or even "the states where two-thirds of the country lives are on my side." That has a lot more impact, especially in negotiations with Congressmen who must get re-elected in those states.

There are other reasons though, mainly the desire all regions have a voice in choosing the only two offices that represent the entire nation. Without Google, name three things about IA or NH that do not involve federal elections. Seems like I have this conversation with European friends every four years, but here it is:

Of 310 million Americans, roughly half live in 40 cities spread over 21 states, the only ones any presidential candidate would visit for direct popular votes. Worse, 6 of those states have no cities larger than Kanas City, MO (metro pop. 2,035,334 or 29th overall.) Concentrating on 16 states would saturate the evening news in 34 cities (and 146 million homes) with the candidates' message for a solid half a year. The other 34 states would be ignored as irrelevant, because they would be.

Under those circumstances, who would go to OK for the 1.2 million votes in Oklahoma City and the million more in Tulsa (about 200 km apart,) let alone spend a week crisscrossing the state for its 3.8 million sparse residents? Say a REALLY impressive tour blew away the decidely partisan voters and earned the candidate 75% of the vote (even though McCain, who did better there than anywhere, only got 66%.) Even ignoring the fact many eligible voters are not registered, an opponent could completely offset that with a bump as small as 5% from a single speech in NYC. A 7% bump from an appearance in L.A. and another in San Diego would do the same. Likewise a 7% bump from an appearance in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio.

Why take chances though: In the week the first candidate spends fighting hard across 200,000 km­­² of OK to net 2 million votes, the other can spend a day in EACH of those 7 cities and net 6 million, maybe more. Best case scenario for the first guy is losing the presidency by a 3:1 margin; 4 or 5:1 is more likely. 50 million voters or 4 million; in a direct popular election spanning half a continent, where would YOU spend your finite time, energy and money? Where should one buy ad time, distribute bumper stickers, recruit mobilization volunteers, fly their learjet? Anyone who says anything but "the 50 largest cities in the country" is too dumb to win, let alone serve. The real kicker is this: 22 US states are EVEN SMALLER THAN OK! Nineteen have no cities with even a METRO population >1,000,000.

In addition to involving all the states though, the Electoral College also helps preserve regional voices, and yes, that is a good thing. It not only balances the concerns of, say, the West Coast against those of the Midwest, it forces the candidates to consider them all as well. Remember when I asked you to name three non-political things about IA and NH? I bet Obama and Romney could name ten about both.

Maybe they only pay those things lip service, and only during the campaign. Regardless, either will take office with a strong grasp of the importance of farm subsidies to the nation, based on what people in the South, Midwest and Great Plains said and folks in the Northeast and on the West Coast did not. They will have input from people in Silicon Valley, Seattle and Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill on technologys value. Rust Belt and Southern residents will have told them about the plight of US manufacturing. The more they hear about an issue from more people along the campaign trail the more they will remember and prioritize it once in office.

A popular (read: Urban) vote would ensure no president ever considered any issue not highly prioritized by large cities. Just because one major party badly hurt its presidential chances when it largely abandoned rural voters is no reason to disenfranchise them (and is unlikely anyway; whether 120 million Western and Southern voters split 60/40 for Republicans en masse or in 3 million man chunks the effect is the same.) Between that and stabbing labor in the back with the NAFTA and WTO it is a wonder the Democratic Party has survived at all, but that is a flaw in it, not the Constitution. They must offer working Americans something to vote FOR again rather than just against. Obama won a landslide with the offer, but is in trouble now because he did not deliver.

If it helps, there IS an attempt underway to effectively eliminate the Electoral College WITHOUT changing the Constitution: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. You may be familiar with it, but if not, the idea is each state passes a law requiring all its electors vote for whoever wins a majority of the national popular vote. After passage, the law takes effect only (but immediately) when enacted by states with a total of 270+ electoral votes. Theoretically, it would survive a SCOTUS challenge; the US Constitution has no requirement electors vote for the winner of their state, and "faithless electors" have frequently voted for other candidates, deliberately or otherwise. In fact, faithless electors have prompted laws in many states requiring electors vote for the winner of the state (though violations could not alter the presidency, only penalize faithless electors.) The federal Constitution DOES say state legislatures have sole discretion in choosing electors, which is the basis of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

The good news for those who want direct popular votes is CA passed the law last year, bringing the total number of Electoral Votes in states that have passed it to 132 of the 270 necessary. The bad news for Democrats is it only has traction in heavily urban (i.e. blue) states, so it can only hurt them. With the exception of TX, FL and OH, Democrats do not lose because of large urban states; they lose because they act like there ARE no other states. Another complication is that it is unclear what would happen if the law passed in states with 270 Electoral Votes but the next census reduced that total below 270 (and since it is only passing in blue states, most of which are bleeding residents, that is a real possibility.)

The Electoral College has flaws (e.g. solidly partisan states still get ignored, not that a popular vote would fix that,) but also numerous real virtues, many by design, and will not soon disappear. Its constitutional mandat survives because of far more than tradition and/or ancestor worship; a lot of those ancestor decisions were very wise, and none was casual. Again, America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy: It is governed by laws elected representatives enact, not solely by the popular will or even those representatives. That also is no accident, but even given all that, which is more democratic:

1) All states voters choosing a presidential candidate, the winner determined by who gets wins a majority of voters in states with a majority of people, or

2) Each voting district choosing their local representative, with the national leader chosen by the majority of winners in those elections?

Did you vote for Brown, or Cameron? Seems like Brown voted for Cameron when Labour got neither a Parliament majority nor coalition with the Liberal Democrats.