The Electoral College members are battles won or lost in a war. Is this really such a difficult analogy for people to grasp? What do you think we'd be doing to determine who leads us if we didn't have elections or hereditary rule?
Arguably only in those districts where they're bound by law to vote the people's choice. Until then we're all just running around with blanks...
Um... But the party chooses the electoral college members. So I suppose it would be more like generals in your army, each holding the territory they won. While it's certainly possible for your general to decide to betray his side and hand over the city/whatever to the other guys, it's pretty unlikely.
It's just funny to me that you guys seem to have never even considered the idea that elections are an analogy for civil war.