> Of course it's easy to criticize the electoral college but look at the results of direct democracy recently, Brexit, the initial rejection of the FARC peace agreement in Columbia.
The obvious counter-example to this argument is Switzerland, which has been a direct democracy (or as close as you can get) for more than 120 years.
Brexit wasn't caused by the system by which the vote was conducted. It was a genuine public sentiment that had been cultivated through decades of media propaganda and scapegoating by politicians. Yes, the fact it was a single-issue vote made the issue more prominent, but it's entirely possible that the same result may have occurred through a general election if the right parties had been galvanized in the same manner.
> There's a reason representative democracy is prefered to direct, it's just difficult to get a balance.
I wonder which group of people overwhelmingly prefers such a system. Political apathy is rampant throughout the world of representative democracies, with a prevailing sentiment that people's views aren't being represented. Two-party politics results in elites being able to control the scope of options available to the electorate.
> Odds are that the Electoral College will be gone in my lifetime.
We can only hope, but that won't solve the two-party problem (or any of the other problems in American democracy such as the rank corruption).
> Is the authoritarian Chinese system better? Of course not.
Is anyone arguing that? The whole point being made is that America is in no position to take the moral high-ground. The US financially (and usually militarily) backs 70% of the world's dictators.