An Arcane Electoral College

    When the Founding Fathers laid the foundation for America, they wanted to avoid the danger of  “mob rule.”  The safeguards against the tyranny of the majority included electing representatives to filter popular thought and electing the president through the Electoral College.  Without the electoral college, America would chose its president in the fashion of a direct democracy.  By giving the people the complete power to chose the president, an abolition of the electoral college demolishes the precautions implemented by the founders against the tyranny of the 51 percent.  The Electoral College has the power to make decisions contrary to the voice of the people if they deem it foolish.  For example, if the majority of people elected a president who would take money away from rich to give to the poor, the Electoral College would have the power to ignore the popular vote and using their wisdom elect a president who they consider as a better leader.
    While the Electoral College takes power away from the people, it gives it to the states.  Congressmen Ron Paul points out the danger of throwing away the Electoral College by saying that, “A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states!”  Because the densely populated states would have the upper hand, in a sans-Electoral College only a few states could control the election of the president.  Delegating the authority of electing the president to the states, the Electoral College gives smaller states a slim disproportional advantage over the larger states.  By placing a limit on the power of large states and their interests, the Electoral College protects the smaller states.
    If this is the reason for the Electoral College, the question of whether it is still applicable remains.  Some protest the Electoral College by saying that it is arcane and unnecessarily confusing.  Challengers of the Electoral College complain about the disproportional nature of the  system.  Applying the same logic to congress, the senate should be abolished, because it also disproportionately represents the American people with two senators per state no matter what the  population.  Consistent opponents will recognize that criticism of the Electoral College inadvertently leads to criticism of the structure of the Senate.  Nevertheless, many doubt the propriety of a pure or direct democracy, though some support it.  The discarding of the safeguards implemented by the founders would prove to be detrimental to the nation.
    Advocates of the Electoral College must make one large assumption that the electors are more knowledgeable and wiser than the public.  If the electors have the same intelligence and understanding as the people, there is no point in having an Electoral College.  The same is true of congress.  When the Founding Fathers formed the American government, they assumed that the American people would choose men to lead them that are more knowledgeable and experienced than themselves.
    Nonetheless, in theory the Electoral College protects and gives voice to the diminutive states.  At the same time, it grants more power to the individual states rather than the people in order to avoid the tyranny of the 51 percent.