"Which was created to save slave states," Behar shot back.
Bullhockey.
The electoral process was not created to SAVE slave states. It was created as a compromise between Congress selecting the President and holding a national democratic popular vote. Period. No other country on Earth allowed the public to directly elect its leaders. Allowing a popular vote meant we'd be at risk for "mob rule", where one party could run the country if they lured/convinced/coerced/fooled enough voters into supporting them. With some regions being quite isolated, it was rightly anticipated those towns may not be able to stay current on the issues affecting elections.
Slavery only came into the picture as part of a compromise, in which slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person. In 1787, roughly 40 percent of people living in the Southern states were black slaves, who couldn’t vote. It was argued they should not be counted for purposes of Congressional representation, taxation or electoral delegates. The "three-fifths compromise" ensured Southern states would ratify the Constitution, and Northern states would be satisfied as well. There was no "saving" of slave states.
In fact, Virginia, with more than 200K slaves, controlled one-fourth (12) of the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. That was not a result of adopting the electoral college, but a result of Virginia having so many slaves within its boundary.
In more than 200 years, the electoral and popular votes have split just five times, and faithless electors have never changed the result of an election.
Given that statistic, perhaps many would agree with Alexander Hamilton, who in No. 68 of the Federalist Papers (http://www.history.com/topics/federalist-papers)
wrote of the new Electoral College system that “if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.”