Noted, I'll have something substantive for you this evening

In short, it follows the Founding Fathers' vision for the type of democracy the US was supposed to have, as well as safeguards against the masses

EDIT:

In much of the writings of the Founding Fathers, especially James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, and expressed in the original structure of the Constitution, there was a fair amount of mistrust of the average American. Governing institutions consisted of many layers of checks and balances and separations to guard against concentration of power or raw public opinion in any one place

The best rationale for the original structure of the government is found in The Federalist, a series of essays published shortly after the Constitution was signed and as it was being ratified, advancing arguments in favour of a federal republic. Among the most notable examples is Madison's essay (Federalist No. 10) in favour of representative government's tendency to break the violence of faction. He argues:

The effect of the first difference is [that is, the delegation of the government...to a small number of citizens elected by the rest, is] to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations

In other words, individual Americans voting will not always vote in the best interest of their own nation, but will vote to advance their own personal interest. As a result, the best form of government would have elected representatives to do the actual governing

Hamilton builds on this line of reasoning in Federalist No. 68, discussing the mode of electing the president:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations

And then continues:

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place

Essentially, Hamilton follows Madison's logic of government-by-a-select-few again, in this case because this small body will be eminently more qualified to conduct the election. Hamilton further argues that the body should be temporary (and not permanent, like the House of Representatives), so as to make it less likely to be corrupted

Remember, in the original Constitution, Senators, who confirmed presidential nominees and ratified treaties, were elected by the state legislatures and not by the individual citizens, essentially shielding key policy decisions even further from the populace

Came here to ask this exact same question - but to piggyback a bit - why doesn't the popular vote beat out the electoral college count when the two are at odds?

Seems like a big point of potential conflict to not have been anticipated and debated when they were structuring the Presidential election process, so surely there's gotta be a historical rationale for favoring the electoral vote count over the results of any direct democracy voter counts...would be curious to know about any source documents or other citations that would shed some light on the context and continued relevance of these types of governmental structure issues because it seems like nothing more than antiquated Constitutional hangover language to me at this point.

What am I missing?

So as you can imagine, this question was asked a few times over the course of the post-election cycle. Most of what I am saying here is from a previous post I made on my personal blog, along with other answers on /r/AskHistorians:

If you are interested in a more detailed answer or background into what system they had before it, check out my blog where I deal with that in greater detail and more context (and more sources). In order to answer your question, background information on how the electoral college fits into the US Constitution is necessary.

The goal of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was to create a new government in secret from the American people. They wanted to emerge from the convention with grand announcements over their new government which left them, the Founders with more power than they ever had before. The Founders desired to replace the Articles of Confederation, a much more republican style of government, with a new one that took power away from the much more democratic states. Let me be clear when the Founders designed this system, they fully were aware that a person could become president who wasn't the popular choice of "The People," but this is exactly why they created the Electoral College in the first place! But how and why did the Electoral College factor into their grand plans? After all, wasn’t the goal of the American Revolution to promote democracy? Well, the war was very much about democracy – but the previous decade really started to make the Founders want to limit democracy’s power.

The Convention

The men who showed up in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 had a clear agenda for this new government. They wanted more power for the national government, and less for the states. They also wanted to limit democracy. Let me be clear, they didn’t want to return to a monarchy or anything of that sort, but they didn’t want the masses to have as much control over politics. The Founders believed that they, the educated and wealthy elites, understood the way the world operated better than farmers or merchants at the state level did.

We see this clearly when the whole convention started with the Governor of Virginia, Edmond Randolph saying:

Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitutions…None of the constitutions have provided sufficient checks against the democracy. The feeble Senate of Virginia is a phantom. Maryland has a more powerful senate, but the late distractions in that State, have discovered that it is not powerful enough. The check established in the constitution of New York and Massachusetts is yet a stronger barrier against democracy, but they all seem insufficient.[1]

Checks against democracy

The whole convention kicks off by the leaders warning each other over the dangers of unlimited democracy.

There were some radical ideas thrown out there (Hamilton, for instance, wanted senators to be selected by state leaders and be in the position for life), but eventually they agreed on a system similar to what we have today – a two party legislature, an executive branch, and a judicial branch. But it didn’t look exactly like we have it today. First, the House of Representatives would be appointed by a popular vote in large voting districts. This sounds good at first, but the size of the districts were intentionally problematic for democracy to work. It embolden wealthy men to be the only ones who could achieve unity in large areas of the population since they had the time and money to travel around and gain support (Hamilton himself actually writes about the brilliance of this point extensively). Second, the senate would have their positions appointed by state legislatures not elected by a popular vote. And third, of course, was the office of the president, who would be appointed by delegates to an “electoral college” who were actually free to cast their ballot against the popular vote. But why did they do this? Why did our early government look so different? It’s because, just like their desire to have checks and balances in the government, they wanted checks and balances against democracy.

Consequently, leading men in each state calling themselves Federalists decided to create a new national Constitution that barred states from passing popular economic policies and to establish a new federal government that would, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, contain “the amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic spirit,” which had produced paper money, war debt revaluation, and debt relief and every other “popular” policy that had “spread like wild-fire” during the 1780s. [2]

So the creation of this Electoral College was another way that they could protect their own interests.

The Electoral College

One of the big topics of debate at the time was how to elect a president. They discussed/debated it for 21 days of the convention! [3] Some argued it should be a vote by Congress, while a few dissenters thought a popular vote would be better. Eventually they compromised, resulting in what is now Article ii, Section 1, clauses 2-4 of the US Constitution. Each state could elect or appoint “electors” who would vote on their states’ behalf. Usually it would be the state legislatures that would appoint these electors. The only real limit on who could run was that a person who was holding public office couldn’t fill this role. After they casted their ballots, they would tally up the votes and whoever had the majority of votes would win. If no one earned a majority, then the decision would go before the House of Representatives.

So what did all this mean? Why create a barrier between the will of the people and the appointment of the president? Well, I’ll let Alexander Hamilton himself tell you why. He believed that the appointment of the president should only be made “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president].” In other words, he didn’t think that the average voter was capable of picking a qualified person for president. What’s funny is that this is one of the points Hamilton made publicly about the process. In private, many of the Founders talked about their fears of “mob rule.” Hamilton thought the people would be glad that they weren’t letting just any white dude vote for the president. For Hamilton, there was fear that “The People” might get caught up in following some demagogue, like Daniel Shays in Massachusetts, rather than a “more legitimate” leader. This provided a way for the elites to ensure that if the popular masses followed someone whom they disapproved of, the college could turn the other way. Just to be clear, the system was designed so that members of this electoral college could vote against what “The People” wanted without any real negative repercussions. There’s actually a term for one of the guys switching their vote from whom they are pledged to vote for and it’s called “faithless elector.” There’s actually been 22 instances of at least one or more electors doing this in US history.

Regardless of the few benefits to having the Electoral College, many historians of the Revolutionary Period believe that this was primarily intended as a barrier against democracy. One such historian said, “writers as J. Allen Smith and Charles Bear, maintained that the complicated indirect method instituted for selecting a chief executive was a reflection of the Founding Fathers’ deep distrust of democracy. The Framers, according to that view, deliberately precluded popular choice of the president to ensure that the leveling force of the masses would not threaten the right of the [gentry].” [4] Essentially, many historians believe that there’s no real way to deny that this was a deliberate action by the Founders over their distrust over the masses.

Did slavery have anything to do with it?

The answer is both yes and no. Slavery was part of a larger conversation by the south, who wanted to see their slave population as accountable with their over-all population for both congressmen and of course electoral votes. However, by 1787, the slave populations in the colonies were not as dramatically affected by slavery as we'll see by the 1830s or later. In 1787, Virginia still had, by far, the largest population, even if you didn't count the number of enslaved people amongst them. They still would have had the largest majority of electoral votes anyway. However, adding in the 3/5ths comprise, magnified their electoral advantage. There's a Vox article which argues, "if it wasn't for the electoral college, the south would have lost every early election" and that's simply impossible to argue, if not flat out untrue. Washington (a Southerner) would have swept both his elections regardless of the electoral college. And Jefferson could have potentially lost his 1800 election, but again that's debatable. I also want to stress that the electoral college was highly favorable by many northers, including anti-slavery lawmakers like Alexander Hamilton. So again, saying it's entirely, or mostly about slavery isn't accurate or a fair articulation of the truth.

Please let me know if this answered your question or if you have any follow ups.

1. John R. Vile. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America’s Founding, Volume 1. pp 284

2. Terry Bouton. Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution Oxford University Press. (p. 176).

3. Shlomo Slonim “The Electoral College at Philadelphia: The Evolution of an Ad Hoc Congress for the Selection of a President” The Journal of American History, Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jun., 1986), pp. 35-58

4. John J. Turner Jr.. “One Vote for the Electoral College” The History Teacher, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May, 2007), pp. 411

Related question, what's the evolution of how it changed over time? As I understand it, originally the electors were chosen by the state legislature, and most states didn't have citizens voting in presidential races at all. And even when they did vote, states weren't "winner takes all" because citizens chose their elector by district. Did people have a sense of who their elector would chose for president?