There are many reasons for the electoral college. However, there is one reason that is constantly stated that is just wrong.

The founding fathers created the electoral college, at least in part, to prevent big cities with dense populations from creating laws for rural America.

It is wrong historically, and it is wrong mechanically.

The founding fathers wrote nothing about this.

The founding fathers wrote a great deal about many aspects of the government. They wrote a lot about the EC. However, there isn't a single writing by any of the founding fathers about the reason of the EC that involves densely populated cities.

This is all new. It's impossible for the founding fathers to have planned/envisioned this.

EVs were originally distributed proportionally. This means that the EVs cast would closely align with the overall populate vote of the country. It wasn't until the early 1800's that a trend emerged.

The more partisan states realized that if they made the EVs winner-take-all, they'd have a larger say on who would be president. If a state generally casted 2 votes for red and 1 vote for blue, moving to a winner-take-all system allowed that state to cast 3 votes for red and 0 for blue.

Other states began to follow to level the playing field. By the 1820's, it was normal practice for states to cast all EVs to the candidate with most votes.

Only two states today continue with the tradition that the founding fathers intended, Nebraska and Maine. If the other states continued as Nebraska and Maine does, the popular vote would closely align with the EVs casted. Rural America would not "have a bigger say."

This winner-take-all system also created the concept of "battle ground states".

Battle-ground states decide the presidency, not rural America.

Presidential candidates write-off states that they are unlikely to win a majority populate vote in. This means that candidates only focus on states that are toss-ups (Florida, Ohio, etc). Rural America has no factor here.

Consider this. Take Miami, and disperse the entire population evenly across all of Florida. Does that change anything about the presidential election if the populate vote is still 51%/49%? No. Rural America has nothing to do with this. It's all about battle-ground states.

And again, the idea of battle-ground states wasn't thought off when the founding fathers created this country. I'd be willing to bet that they would have created safe-guards preventing them.

Why should one person's vote matter more than another?

I've not heard and good argument for this. The founding fathers went through great lengths to ensure a fair election. It is ridiculous to suggest that they actively sought to undermine the voting power of certain cities, while boosting others. There were a lot of discussions about the 3/5's compromise, but never one discussion about some "rural/city" compromise.

But if I consider the argument, what if even more people moved to Miami? Would their vote be worth even less? What if all of Florida moved to Miami, and one dude stubbornly stayed in Myaka? At what point does this entire argument just fall apart on it's face due to it's absurdity?

Conclusion

• The founding fathers did not envision the rural/city argument.
• They wouldn't have supported it if they'd have.
• It isn't even how things actually work.
• It's all about swing-states (another oversight from the founding fathers).
• Every person's vote should be weighted the same. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.