I caught a tidbit of some moron comedian on Comedy Central earlier, talking about the Electoral College, and how silly it would be to explain the system to an outsider. Comedian aside, it got me thinking not about the importance of the College itself, but of the system.

We all know the original reasons for the Electoral College and we also know that it hardly amounts to anything more than a political nod to the important of a person to the winner's campaign. The Electors themselves do little to influence the outcome of the election (I don't know what the exact numbers are, but can anyone remember the last time that an Elector voted against the candidate that nominated him and it affected the outcome of the election? Has it ever?)

So while the College itself seems to have outlived its purpose, few people ever consider the underlying system, which is a limitation on the amount of influence any one state can have on the outcome of the election. This means that if California has only 3 voters, they exert the full influence of the state's population in the outcome of the election. Alternatively, if every single registered voter in California were to vote, then they can only affect the outcome of the election proportionate to their population, even though they may represent more than 50% of total voters in the election.

Taking out the mechanics of the Electoral College itself (vote for candidate, winning candidate nominates Electors, Electors vote for candidate of choice), do you still reject this system? Would you remove it entirely, or tweak it?