Why the electoral college matters

I was watching a you tube video today that featured Lawrence Lessig, where he was laying out the case that an electoral college in its present form disenfranchises voters.  This is not a new idea and i had heard many arguments against the electoral college before.  Everything from the original intent was racist, to the Al Gore and Hillary stolen election thesis.  The majority of the clamor comes from the Democrats and intensifies the further left of center you go.  This makes sense politically for the obvious reason that the Republicans have been perceived as to have benefited in two national elections and the demographics of the country in general suggest that if a purely populist model existed, than Democratic power would be assured.  I agree. That is exactly why the electoral college is a good idea and should continue to exist.  I believe this, not because i wish to see Republicans in power, i believe this because i believe in the Tyranny of the majority.  Most left leaning and progressive Democrats should be intimately familiar with this SJW staple concept.  One of the  biggest problems with the cis white male patriarchy, is that it is a majority in terms of controlling the reigns of power. A pure democracy when left to its own devices will tend to lead to an oppression of the minority by the majority.  This is the defining redemptive quality that the electoral college possesses intrinsically  in its design and practice.  Does it disenfranchise some voters? Yes.  It does so in the same way that a voter in Wyoming knows that their vote has zero effect on any outcome of a presidential election.  The tiny amount of electoral votes they have are insignificant in swaying anything, given the current makeup of American politics.  The same could be said of the New York Republican voter as well, or a Democrat in Georgia.  So structural disenfranchisement is less of an issue than the protection against Tyranny that is provided for by the electoral college.  I can hear liberal heads exploding all over the country.  They will say how much more tyrannical can you get then Donald Trump or George Bush?  From a policy and rhetorical position they have a good argument.  The important issue however is not the outcome of any single election, or the popularity of a particular candidate.  The issue rather is protecting the idea of fairness, and avoiding a glaring opportunity for unchecked oppression. I will illustrate what i am arguing for.  I come from a small town in Alaska.  That means that my vote in state wide elections is meaningless and my vote in national elections is even more meaningless.  What do i mean by that?  In Alaska, as is the same in other states, what the largest city votes for is all that matters, because it is by far the largest population center.  In Alaska that city is Anchorage.  That city dominates the politics of the state.  Alaska is a massive state in terms of land mass and distance.I t is on par with talking about 1/3rd of the continental United States.  So we are talking about 1/3rd of the United States governed by Oklahoma city.  My point is geography matters.  Why should one people that all have the same shared experiences, same challenges, same expectations, and the same values be able to impose on another people, simply because there are more of them.  What if the reverse were true? What if for example a small village in northwest Alaska that lives off the land felt that cities were to crowded. Imagine they were able to pass a law that banned all buildings in New York City over 2 stories.  They also ban any road over two lanes and require that every square mile of real estate must contain .9 of a mile of indigenous forest.  Further more, no mass transit is allowed, all buses and trains, including subways, must be destroyed.  This would devastate the economy of New York City to say the least.  However from the perspective of a Native Alaskan it makes sense, and they can't see how New York citizens would not be better off to breath fresh clean air, swim in crystal blue water, and hunt plentiful game all around.  This is why shared experience and geography matter.  The same can be said of a New York voter exercising their majority of population power over that little village in Alaska and closing off land calling it a national park.  Which has happened by the way but that is another topic. This is an extreme example but it does illustrate why whenever a political map is drawn up, there are pockets of blue around big cities and large swaths of red everywhere else.  Shared experience and geography are important.  This is the beauty of the electoral college.  The electoral college does not allow one population center to stamp out the wishes of a different people that they have nothing in common with.  It prevents a tyranny of the majority.  That is why it is important that it remain as it is.  The electoral college is the filibuster for the little guy in America.  It is not only OK that the populist candidate sometimes loses, it is a perfectly desirable outcome.