THREAD: Since everyone is thinking a lot about the way we choose our president this week, I will restate the question I frequently ask: What, exactly, are those who defend the Electoral College defending?

It can't be protecting small states, because the Electoral College has never done that. In fact it hurts small states, which are overwhelmed by the statewide winner-take-all rule. It also hurts big states and medium states -- all states that are not battleground states.

In fact small states have long understood this -- see the federal lawsuit Delaware and other small states brought vs. NY and other big states in 1966, claiming that winner-take-all violated the equal protection clause.

It can't be protecting against domination by the big cities. Big cities don't come close to having enough votes to sway the outcome of a national election. In fact the 100 biggest cities have almost exactly the same population as rural America.

It can't be that it forces candidates to reach out to voters everywhere. Because they don't right now. Instead they spend virtually 100% of their time and money focusing on the interests of the few battleground states.

Battleground states, where the vote happens to be very close, are not uniquely representative of the country; in fact they're often less representative than other states. But a little campaigning can swing all their electors, and even the White House, to one side or the other.

It can't be that the framers designed it this way. The framers never discussed the winner-take-all rule at the convention, and when they saw it getting adopted in the states, they hated it. Madison proposed a constitutional amendment barring the practice.

Also, the framers didn't anticipate national political parties, which rose up in the late 1700s and immediately blew up their idea of how the College would function.

Also, the framers, many of whom were slaveholders, did not think in terms of broad enfranchisement of Americans. They were exhausted when they finally settled on a method for picking the president. They did it primarily to get the charter finished and out the door.

It can't be the concern that without an Electoral College, lots of candidates would run and the winner might only get a plurality of the vote. 15 of 45 presidents have won with less than a majority, including Nixon, Truman, Wilson and, of course, Lincoln.

It can't be a fear of "mob rule." What is mob rule, anyway? I don't know. But the "mob" currently votes in all 50 states. We have a national popular vote right now! The only reason it's not measured that way is, yep ... the statewide winner-take-all rule.

Nobody likes this rule. Republicans hate it when it erases their votes. 4.5 million people in CA went for Trump in 2016, all invisible thanks to winner-take-all. Democrats hate it for the same reason.

It can't be a fear of prolonged recounts, which are far more likely to happen at the state than the national level. In 2000 we knew on Election Night who'd won the popular vote. It took 36 chaotic and litigious days to figure out who won Florida, and thus the White House.

So, I ask again: If you still defend the Electoral College as it operates today, what is it you're defending?