Well first, having an electoral college comprised solely of bound electors would still be different than a straight PV election. But more importantly, preserving tradition is important, we can't just take an iconoclast view of government and start tearing down whatever institution we feel is outdated.
"Because tradition" is a logical fallacy in general and an especially stupid argument for keeping the electoral college around. Our country decided very early on that the roles of both the presidency and the presidential election were going to be vastly different from what the framers intended when they designed the electoral college. The electoral college was an anachronism by 1828. Most of the actual arguments that people throw around today for keeping the EC (preventing ties, etc.) are post hoc rationalizations that have nothing to do with why the EC was implemented in the first place. The EC
certainly no longer serves one of its original primary functions, protecting the interests of small states.
The votes cast by faithless electors through history, when looking back, tell us a lot about that election. I don't feel there's a need to bind electors, but openly threatening to defy the voters because of a bogus "conscience" reason is ridiculous, since electors do not exist to express their individual conscience, even if there was a conscience issue. Endorsing that kind of thinking is just as outrageous.
Don't they, though? The original main purpose of the EC was literally to keep the presidency in the control of the independent judgment of a small group of elites and out of the hands of the masses.
