Mr. Jay Evensen's recent article written in support of the Electoral College has strong points — notably that rural areas should have sufficient representation in their interests, as they differ from urban areas — but there are key arguments against this system that he fails to address.
The Electoral College portrays each state as having unified interests — as entirely urban or rural, for instance. Reality shows that states are more diverse than that. Look at Florida; the state's population is split between "urban" and "rural" populations, but with a margin of 120,000 votes, its full slate of electors will effectively paint the entire state as "rural" when it casts its 29 votes for President-elect Trump this December (whereas it was declared "urban" when it voted for Obama).
Additionally, the influence of a person's individual vote for president is incredibly diluted, at least in most states. In battlegrounds, it has influence. But in Kentucky or California, one vote carries no influence whatsoever; the outcome is practically certain.
Most will agree that states should have legislative districts equally apportioned to shares of their populations. Courts have repeatedly upheld and even required this — "One person, one vote."
The Electoral College is in clear violation of this principle.