Mitch didn’t invent the Electoral College, of course; it was designed by the Founding Fathers to be a group of grandees who would use their independent judgment to pick presidents. Things didn’t work out that way, of course. Today, the Electoral College is usually criticized for being anti-democratic; the winner of the popular vote is by no means assured of prevailing in the election. But is there more to the story than that?
Yes. The biggest problem with the Electoral College under today’s circumstances is that the outcomes in over 40 states are already known long before the election, so the entire focus of the campaign is on the swing states. That has two important implications: first, the residents of those states receive a disproportionate amount of attention, while the rest of the country is ignored; and second, winners are determined by a handful of votes in a few states, so there is enormous pressure on election officials in those states. That is unhealthy both for the states in question and for the nation as a whole.
The Constitution does not require states to award all of their electoral votes to the overall winner of the state. It would be much healthier for American liberal democracy if all of the states would agree to a proportional representation scheme. That would eliminate the pressure on the current swing states and require presidential candidates to campaign vigorously for votes throughout the entire country, thereby making the system far more democratic.