The Electoral College is a defender of the equal rights of states and the rights of citizens of the states. The United States is composed of fifty states. Each state is equal. Citizens of each state elect federal representatives and senators to send to attend the federal legislature. Senator apportionment of two for each state is permanent. Populations may shift about interstate yet states remain equal. The people of New York and California cannot just out-vote and plunder Alaska or Rhode Island (though corporations can plunder well enough).
The Executive branch is one of three parts of the federal government. The other branch is the Judicial and its members on high courts require approval by Congress (and the Congress is more or less equally representing all of the states interests). The Judicial branch is not generally a problem.
The Executive is elected by the voters of each state through an electoral college. That electoral college is selected something like the way the Congress is selected; two for the senators of each state plus the number of representatives. That is fair and proportionate selection of the electoral college. It keeps the election of the president fair and balanced representing state and popular interests together just like the legislature.
To eliminate the electoral college would throw the selection out of balance regarding states. To restore the balance one would also need to eliminate the extra representatives given to populous states. Perhaps each state would then have just three representatives.
There are 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators = 535. There are 538 members of the electoral college. The people of states elect the electors and the electors elect the Executive (as the way the citizens voted).
Of course the most populous states would like to have their cake and eat it too getting rid of the electoral college yet keeping the extra representatives in the U.S. Congress. Such an act would be a reason to de-unionize the states and return to independent status so the most populous states would need to rely upon their own resources rather than plunder less populous state’s resources.
The equality of states as abstract entities is equal in my opinion. One sees that in the U.S. Senate apportionment. The people are significant too as relates to the composition of the Federal government legislative branch and electoral college for the Executive branch. So the representation in Congress is proportional as is the composition of the electoral college. That is pragmatic. People are not abstract entities.
The federal government is of the nation and the people. It is appropriate that its members are selected with the rights of states and the populous together for the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches.
Some Democrats would of course like a Moscow style strong central government with states being fairly meaningless and subject to the transcending power of the Chief Executive.
It is interesting that the Republic of Plato had two philosopher-kings ruling the people for life. He probably got his idea from Sparta, except Sparta hadn’t a philosopher ruling the military state. One could find the divine right of kings implicit in philosopher-kings ruling within the realm of forms paradigm of temporal forms, and blame The Republic for middle ages divine rights theories of monarchy, yet even some primitive tribes had ideas about god-kings long before Plato.
Socrates and his student Plato liked the oligarchy and hated the democracy. It is ironic that the concept of abolishing the electoral college would best serve to accomplish the absolute power of oligarchy or plutonomy through places of power like Wall Street in New York.
The United States probably has the best form of hybrid government, or did before it crept in to corporatism-socialism. Many are always at work these days trying to destroy it-sometimes inadvertently.