A very good friend ardently announces that the Electoral College should be ignored at vote counting time. He also becomes highly irate if anyone questions his opinion, which means I cannot debate his opinion. But I can question Mark Shields' stance on the subject because it truly does not require a college degree.
The problem arose in the period after the end of the Revolutionary War, when many of the leaders felt the need for some sort of national government. The smaller states were concerned that any national government might be taken over by the larger states with greater populations, such as today's California. The smaller states were satisfied when all states were given two senators, regardless of size. I wonder if that bothers Mark, too?
The same problem arose with the presidential election. How could the small states have any influence in a national election dominated by large states? The solution became the Electoral College, and its method of choosing delegates. Is it fair? That depends on who you talk to. Wyoming still has little influence, but it is an acceptable compromise, as is everything, in the Constitution.
But why Ohio? The outcome in most large states is pretty well decided and other large states are unlikely to be changeable. Maybe next election it will be Pennsylvania. It has worked well enough for more than 200 years and no acceptable change has been found.