> So far, the biggest argument I've heard for keeping the bloody thing is that without the electoral system, candidates won't visit the smaller, less populated states. Instead, they'd probably sit in New York City or Washington, DC, and campaign via television.

The electoral college also accents state rights. The power we give to states is, if I'm not mistaken, unique in the world, and it allows a large country to function well by allowing the govnerning of the people to be more tailored to the needs of those in each region. The power of the states has declined considerably since the Civil War, when the North winning had the effect of taking away a state's legal right to succede from the union. Since then, we've had weaker states and a stronger federal government, but our states are still comparatively strong compared to the regional governments of other large countries. (The provinces of Canada are mostly too large to function well as local governing; in fact our own state of California is to large to meet the internally diverse needs of its people.)

Dissolving the electoral college would be a fundamental break-down of states' power. I would support converting electoral votes over such that they represent a proportional equivalent of the popular vote within the state, and I would definitely support requiring the electors to be legally bound to vote according to the popular vote, but that's as far as I would go. If you're going to dissolve the electoral college (which is set up to give smaller states a voice in the election), you might as well dissolve the Senate, too. Then it's just too bad if you happen to live in Rhode Island.