I've heard the defense was to make the election "fair" and give other states a voice in the election. But I don't think that really holds true. CA, NY, and TX hold the most electorates because they have the largest populations. If it were fair than we'd just give each state the same amount of electorates regardless of population. I'm not really seeing a difference but am open to other thoughts.I've heard those defenses of the Electoral College before – that it protects the minority from the rule of the majority. The Electoral College absolutely was a compromise in 1792. It was required to get the slave-holding states to join the union. They had smaller voting populations compared to the non-slave states, and they demanded greater representation in the proposed federal government than they deserved. That compromise should have ended with the elimination of slavery after the Civil War. Whenever I hear that bogus argument, I ask how fair is it for the minority to rule?\nThe Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”\n\nSince the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.\n\nThe ratification of the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the States’ use of the popular vote to determine who will be appointed as electors have each substantially changed the process.\n\nMany different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the eligible voters, but none has been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.Thanks for the link. Yes, a Constitutional amendment is needed to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a nationwide popular vote. That's not happening in the foreseeable future.\n\nBut there's another way to reform the Electoral College without amending the Constitution. Add more districts to the House of Representatives. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it must be 435. In the past, every time a new state was admitted to the USA, more congressional districts were added. The last time that happened was 1912, with the addition of New Mexico and Arizona, making the total 435. (If I remember correctly, when Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959, the total number stayed the same at 435.)\n\nSince 1912, the US population has roughly tripled, but the number of Congressional districts has remained 435. Why not double or triple that while keeping the same apportionment among the states? Keep the Electoral College as the Constitution now has it. It would make voting for president closer to one person – one vote. And it just might be a way to partially correct some the radical gerrymandering that we have.