I was asked to write an explanation or defense of the Electoral College, but I find I am unable to do so. The idea of the president being selected from a temporary body, beholden to no special interests, existing for a sole purpose and too briefly to be open to pressure or corruption, is too obviously wise, sage, fair and sound to need any defense.
Nor am I imaginative to invent serious objections to it. It has no drawbacks, no weaknesses.
There are those who argue that large but few states should domineer the smaller but many states merely make an assertion absurd on it face.
If it is said that the greater population numbers of the few large states gives their interests more weight than the less populated states who outnumber the few, on the grounds of democracy, it is sufficient to say that those same grounds, with equal logic, support the opposite: for the less populated states outnumber the few.
In reality, the Constitutional system gives the Senate more weight to the smaller many states and the House of Representatives gives more weight to the larger fewer states, and so the competing interests balance nicely.
However, as a courtesy to my readers confronted with specious argument against the College of Electors, it should be sufficient to quote from the Federalist Papers.
I am gratified to note that Hamilton has that same inability as do I: he can think of no serious argument against the provision.
Here follow words from a wiser pen than mine.
Source: The Electoral College