The Electoral College was designed as a mechanism
of "consensus", to select as President a person who 
was found to be acceptable to the largest number of 
citizens -- not necessarily the one who could get the 
biggest PLURALITY, but one with the least negatives 
and/or one who was acceptable 
(even as a compromise) to most citizens.

It was (and could again be) an excellent system,
far better than a winner-takes-all popular vote,
but it has been distorted and rendered inneffective
by three developments:

    1.  Winner-take-all contests, wherein whoever gets 
    a plurality gets 100% of the electors.

    2.  At-large statewide slates, rather than election 
    of electors by district..

    3.  The invention of political "parties".

The idea of the electoral college was to have representatives
of each district meet together and negotiate to arrive at a choice 
that was most acceptable to those whom they represented.
Even tho the voters back home in the district might have a
"favorite son" as their first choice, the Elector would realize
that there was not enuf statewide or nationwide support for
that individual and would (perhaps after a few ballots where
nobody got an absolute majority) throw his vote to the next-best
candidate or someone who as closely as possible reflected
the views of the citizens he was sent to represent.

In many ways, the original Electoral College was
very much like the national conventions held by 
today's political parties -- especially in earlier 
years, when there were several conteners at
the convention and the primary elections had 
not whittled down the field to only one.

The rise of parties in America is only one thing which 
distorted the Electoral College, but the worst impact 
was the insidious "winner-take-all" system, instituted as 
a way for a state to gain more leverage by voting as a bloc.
That meant that the views of the minority were no longer 
represented in the Electoral College -- even if they were 
49%, the 51% on the other side would controll 100% of 
that state's electors!  This was not anticipated, and it has 
crippled the system even worse than has the party system.

Originally, each district would select one Elector,
and there would be two more Electors selected
statewide.  While states may still do that
(and a couple of them still do), most states now
run ALL of their electors "at-large", statewide,
on a "winner-take-all" basis.  

One way of resorting democracy and truly,
representative government in America,
with protection of minority rights, would be
to adopt (possibly by Constitutional Amendment)
a "proportional representation" system, so that
the majority (or plurality or swing vote) cannot
ignore and trample the rights of the minority.

Finally, the "party system distorted and corrupted 
not only the Electoral College but also the Congress 
and the state legislatures.  To make matters worse, 
instead of having several parties to represent diverse 
interests, they formed coalitions that eventually 
coalesced into two majot parties which passed 
restrictive ballot access laws to keep other, smaller 
parties entirely off the ballot.  

Today, there are at least six or seven Presidential 
candidates running in enuf states to win a majority 
of the Electors.  In fact, at least two of them will be 
on the ballot in all 50 states + DC (Harry Browne
and Pat Buchanan).  However, the winner-take-all
system virtually assures that none of them will get
ANY electoral votes, because -- even if they had a
majority in several districts, they would get zero
electors unless they won the entire state!  Also,
the two parties control the debates, so that Browne,
nader, Buchanan, hagelin, and Philips will not even
be heard and cannot influence the polls.

For many reasons -- not just the Electoral College --
Presidential elections have become so unrepresentative
and so lacking in real choices that a majority of the
voters have voted against them:  by staying home.
That's right, in the last election, a majority of the voters
VOTED that the election was not worth bothering with,
and stayed home!  

In 1992, the President was elected by 19% of those 
who could have voted, because nearly half stayed home.
In 1996, more than half stayed home, and the winner 
was elected by only 24%.  This year, I fear the turnout
will be even worse.  With Buchanan, Nader, Browne, 
andf others getting a few percent each, the next President
might very well take office due to the votes of only 15-20%.

Sorry to have rambled on so, but this is a complex question
and it brings up many related issues.  Also, sorry to sound 
so dreary, but htere are several serious problems with the 
democratic process in this country, and I don't see them
being fixed, or even addressed, in the forseeable future.

bam

P.S.  In my state, due to the winner-take-all system, my vote 
is already meaningless.  One of the big two is clearly going
to win the state, and nobosy can do anything to help him
or to hurth the other one, who cannot win the state.
Therefore (as in 1996), I am free to vote my conscience,
and cast my vote AGAINST BOTH of them, by choosing 
one of the 3rd-party candidates.  That's much better than
staying home.