Yes, for those who revere the electoral college because it is what the founders intended, can we just drink a dose of reality and remember that the EC is nothing like what the founders envisioned?
Not only has our two-party system changed its original function, but so have our ideas about what electors may do. The founders thought it would be a deliberative body. Electors were expected to debate among themselves, negotiate, and choose the president.
I don’t think those who are high on retaining our traditions want to retain that tradition.
But we have a very easy fix if the states would just do it. Award electors to candidates proportionately based on the proportion of the popular vote.
Two states do that already. If all states decided to, then we wouldn’t have these crazy situations in which the president did not win the popular vote.
We would also have more useful national debates about issues, in my opinion. If presidential candidates were free to speak about issues to the people as a whole, we might find ourselves embroiled in less controversy.
Today, a presidential candidate cannot stand up and say, let’s take a reasonable position about abortion – even though a large majority of Americans would agree.
Our non-proportional representation in presidential politics makes that too risky.
We need a better system, and changing how we award electors would be no more faithless to the founders' ideals than what we already have.