...
The electoral college thus makes rule of the mob even stronger than it was before, by strengthening the vote of the states where the people are least disparate.
This is not really true. Or, let me be more precise: to the extent it is true it is not the fault of the Electoral College. It is only coincidental that, say, Wyoming, the Dakotas, etc. is quite undiverse. It could, and probably has at various points in time, been just the opposite.
Also, don't conflate demographic and political diversity. I'm not disagreeing that it's the case that most of the small states that benefit from the Electoral College system are probably not politically diverse -- I haven't looked at numbers recently but it seems likely to be the case. But, there are states like New Hampshire (very small) that are demographically very homogeneous but politically very diverse -- there is a wide disparity of political leanings throughout the state. You can contrast that with states like New York (very large), that while having a fair bit of demographic diversity is actually pretty politically homogeneous -- even the Republicans and Democrats in the state have relatively (though boy is that a big qualifier nowadays) little daylight between them.
This Electoral College discussion has gone on in college dormrooms for generations. It
does disproportionately favor small, lower population states. There's no question about that. And, that's
by design. The Framers knew that was exactly what they were doing and went along with it -- the prevailing narrative is that it was to buy off the smaller states to participate in the constitutional scheme at all lest they be thoroughly dominated by the larger states. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good thing, but it's a well-known fact that once upon a time we were willing to accept as the cost of doing business.
Frankly, if you're concerned about this sort of thing you should stop talking about the Electoral College right now and be really concerned about
the Senate. Tiny states will, and always have, guided national policy through that body. And, note that very little in the US government system is strictly-speaking, majoritarian.
States are not entities either
...
States are meaningless historical boundaries.
Unfortunately, every single thing in the United States political system disagrees with these statements (though not the statement about intra-state diversity that I excerpted). States are the most meaningful political entities in the nation. The entire system is predicated on their existence and their power. They may be arbitrary, but hell so are nations, but they are certainly not meaningless. Unlike the Federal Government, that only has enumerated powers, states have wide-ranging "police power" for the welfare of their residents. Also, unless you are a mobster, it is about 1000 times more likely that if you go to jail it's a state law that is going to send you there.
Contrast this with parties, that have no legal existence, no legal powers, whatsoever. The Democratic Party is a club, it's the 4H, according to American law Massachusetts is a sovereign empowered to make vital, life or death, decisions for millions of people.
You may not like it, nobody is asking you to, but it's the way things are in the United States.
