Yeah, I'm not out to debate this, but wanted your opinion.
From my earliest memory (Grammar School):
House = People
Senate = States
President = Executive/Administrative.
But as to the EC, I haven't seen a definitive answer. I remember way back in Grammar School History, first reading the populace was considered too uneducated to be trusted with such a decision. I've since seen theories that the EC acts as a geographical brake, forcing a distribution of voting power across the country.
Then there's this from Madison in committee to determine the form of voting during the Constitutional Convention, where he states it was a giveaway to the Southern States due to slavery skewing the vote (coincidently from the same source you used):
" The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
Source:
Yale Law
So I dunno.
There seems to be a dearth of factual knowledge, vs tons of conjecture and supposition.
It would seem to me "lack of education" no longer applies, and neither would skewing the vote to accommodate the 3/5 person Southern States effect. That would pretty much leave the "give greater voice to rural areas" as the only theory that might apply today, and I'm not sure I agree with diminishing the value of one group of citizen's votes, or amplifying another group's.
I am going to be doing some research in this.
