Not a reason
Convective thought.

For some reason I was thinking about the idiotic Electoral College, and remembering that I used to be among its defenders, at least in terms of original intent.

Suddenly realized that the BEST argument FOR it is false. We normally say that it was a necessary evil because transportation and communication were slow in 1787. It's true that comm was slow BY MODERN STANDARDS, but 1787 didn't know that the telegraph and railroad would come along 40 years later, and the telephone 90 years later.

1787 had horses and runners, and DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ELSE. EVERYTHING IN LIFE was adjusted to horses and runners. The greatest distance from a state capital to the Federal capital was Atlanta to Philly, about 800 miles. A horse-and-runner system could easily handle 30 miles per day. [The Pony Express did 250/day, but that was unsustainable and inhumane for both horse and rider.] 800/30 = 26 days. Assume about a week for local results to reach state capitals, and a month for all states to reach Philly. 1787 didn't have a problem with waiting six weeks to settle an election.

The transportation time would have been the SAME for a direct election, so this is NOT an argument for indirect elections.

And we don't have a problem with delay now. The 2000 election took two months to settle, even with all of our modern phones and webs and whatnot. In the end the "votes" didn't matter at all. We didn't use the actual "votes", and we didn't use the HR tie-breaker method that was SPECIFICALLY FUCKING PROVIDED by the Constitution. Instead, we allowed a senile demonic blackrobe to flip a coin. Communication was a moot point.

So the idea that this idiocy was NEEDED to compensate for distance is classic Presentism, taking a standard that we don't even use today, and stamping it onto people who were fully adjusted and content with their own standards.

Okay, then, how about modern tabulation and computation of results? 1787 didn't have computers, so they couldn't add up the votes fast enough, so they had to trust electors to stand in with estimates.

Pure nonsense. Not even Presentism!

Each polling place handled at most a few hundred people, THEN AND NOW. Assume that the presidential votes are given priority, leaving the local stuff for the next day. Each polling place can tabulate its pres totals in an hour. The polling places then submit to the county, which is dealing with a few hundred totals. Again an hour. The counties then submit to the state, which is dealing with a few DOZEN totals. Again an hour. So the total tabulation time within each state, BY FUCKING HAND, was a few hours BECAUSE THE LABOR WAS DISTRIBUTED PROPERLY. We take a few hours now by computer. WHERE'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM?

In other fucking words, the only justification for the EC in 1787 AND in 2015 is that it places the choice in the hands of a few corruptible satans gathered in one room where bribers and corruptors can reach them easily.

It's designed to be corrupt. Nothing else.

= = = = =

2019 addendum: We saw an excellent live example of hand tabulation in the British elections for EU Parliament. All paper ballots, all handled and tabulated by humans. Done in a few HOURS.

= = = = =

2020 addendum: A mechanical semaphore system, which was invented and available in 1787 but never used in America, could have sent the results from Atlanta to Philadelphia in a few minutes. So the idea that they "didn't know any better" is also disproved. They knew how to communicate instantly but CHOSE NOT TO.
  ¶ 11:53 AM