True enough that the most populous states could rule the election. Actually it would not be the most populous states ruling the election. It would be the metropolitian areas, even across state lines. A strictly popular vote counting would give the most power to the highest density population centers, regardless of what state, or multiple states, they exist.
And to be marked as prejudiced, given the history of the huge population of California in their local politics, that could be frightening just for that one region, much less others, having a larger voice.
And that is one good reason for the electoral college type process.
And each state is suppose to choose how to select it's representatives I believe. The original senate representation to be selected by the state was to balence the states against the populist power of the House of Representatives along the same lines I believe.
Of course, also some founding fathers didn't trust the common population too much I don't think.
Now the electoral representation of each state is the number of senators plus the number of representatives that state has, as I recall. Since all states have two senators, they're equal in that. Representatives are determined by what share of the national population the state has.
So the electorial college reflects the same balencing act that the Congress is presumely base on I guess. Balencing popularity vs state power?
At first glance, I guess it would be tempting to say all states have 2 senators so that is a wash. But actually a smaller state, or one with a smaller population more accurately, has more influence per state citizen because those two votes represent fewer people.
So yes, the method does keep the specific and particular interest of the large metropolitian areas from overruling the interest of the rural citizens.
All in all I guess not a bad state of affairs. I'm sure some would claim that effectively discriminates against those that live in metropolitian areas.
Of course, the electoral college only affects the Presidental election directly. But since all federal appointed judges have to be nominated by the executive branch before the legislative branch can even say yea or nay, it gives the President as much or actually more influence over the judicial branch than the Congress has. So in the long run it affects that too. And since Congressmen are often said to "ride the coattails" of the President in an off presidental year election, it can even influence the legislature indirectly. Of course, an unpopular President in the off year influences the legislative elections in the opposite way.
As much as I hate to be on record as saying what follows, it's a IMO realistic if cynical (and perhaps unfortunate) truth. While we still argue a lot of state rights, there aint much of such left. The federal government has grown to the point that states are literally no more than political subdivisions, about like which congressional district you officially reside within.
Not a totally good thing, and not 100% accurate, but as I said it's just my rather cynical view of realism.
click here to email email@example.com