re: electoral college question:
There is literally no advantage to it if you believe that presidents should be elected via direct democracy by the people. There is no world in which adding a layer of an electoral college, even one that is perfectly representative, would ever result in a more democratic result than the simpler direct popular vote. Add on the fact that the electoral college (intentionally) is not directly representative, and you have what many people think is an abomination for a country claiming to be a democracy.
If however, you believe that the USA is really a federation of powerful states and the President is a somewhat limited-power global representative chosen by the states to handle a few key issues, as the constitution conceived of it (and when the electoral college really was the one and only election -
there was no popular vote at all in most states for the elections between 1788 and 1820. 1824 was the first where it was common as the method for determining how states would allocate their electors, but even then some states like
Maryland didn't listen to the popular vote results), then obviously, yes, some form of voting per-state would be necessary. In a world where the electoral college was the original paradigm, it would have seemed crazy in 1824 to say "well, actually it should just be who wins the most votes from the people", since even then a few states were selecting their electors in their state legislatures.
This is all to say the best defense of the electoral college is "According to the constitution, states are the primary political power, but we do need to have a President for important national issues, and they will be elected into this limited-power federal role by the comparatively more powerful states. Since not all states are/were equally populous, there needs to be a compromise where the less populous states can feel they will not be overrun by the more populous states in the selection of this President. There were lots of compromises in the constitution that were necessary in order to get states of varying sizes and circumstances to ratify it, and this is just one of them. It is what it is/The founders were geniuses, since it has lasted until today." This was also a world with no fast transit or communications. Even senators used to be elected by the state legislatures. The only federal office voted by direct democracy was the representative in the House. The thought was how can you vote for someone you've never even met or heard of? Direct democracy for the guy representing your immediate area? Sure. Direct democracy for someone dozens or hundreds of miles away? No way - That's crazy! That's like several days or weeks in a carriage!
But both of these factors are no longer true. For one thing - we have many forms of transit that enable the presidential candidates to truly campaign everywhere, as well as instant communication via phones, internet, tv, etc. In addition, the USA is no longer really a federation of states, where states are the main player and retain the vast majority of powers, while presidents pretty much only handle the key "national" issues of international relations and defense. That ceased to be the case a very long time ago, and grows ever more false with each presidency. Congress has over time ceded so much power to the executive branch that it is the President who is now responsible to "take care" that the law is executed and enforced in matters ranging from healthcare to education to environmental protection to infrastructure, etc etc. The election of the president really does impact people's everyday lives in significant fashion, even more so than who the governor or senator of their state is. As such, I don't see how to reconcile this with the best defense of the electoral college.
We long ago required that all senators be elected by direct democracy - they used to be elected by state legislatures, similarly to how electors used to be picked. Yet somehow the Presidency has remained caught up in this weird undemocratic institution. It needs to go.