This editorial says the Electoral College is bad because it disenfranchises some voters. If John McCain wins Indiana (as the paper assumes), it means "a Hoosier vote for Obama essentially won't count." That's a pretty lame argument -- anyone who votes for the losing candidate, no matter what system is used, has that vote rendered meaningless. Under the end-run around the Electoral College being considered by about a dozen states and remarked on favorably by the editorial, electors would be apportioned based on who won the congressional districts. If I voted for McCain but Obama won the 3rd District, he would get all those electors, and my vote would rendered no less meaningless than those of the losing voters under the current system.
Those who want to do away with the EC display a fundamental lack of appreciation for the system this country has, why it was set up that way and what the benefits are:
The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. It was set up to protect states with smaller populations. Since the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, the election process has changed dramatically because of the evolution of the two major political parties and the impact of money and the news media on the campaigns.
The Electoral College, quite simply, isn't good for democracy. It can discourage voter turnout, as could be the case with Hoosier Democrats in the fall.
But we're not a democracy, are we? We're a federalist republic, with lots of delicate separations of power and diffusions of authority. The election process may have changed because of the parties, the money, and the press, but the need to weigh and balance regional interests remains.