The Electoral College is not a college. What we know as the "college" is actually an institution, made up of representatives who select the president and respective vice president from the pool of candidates (which is only two typically, due to the system).
On Election Day, we vote for a representative in the Electoral College to vote for the candidate we want, instead of directly for that specific candidate. This implementation was a direct answer to the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, which failed because it gave to much power to the people; they abused the power and almost caused America's collapse. Every state has only a certain number of these representatives, and therefore electoral votes - which are determined by the state's population. In total there are 538 electoral votes distributed across the states, with some obviously having more than others because of population differences. However, a candidate does not need to necessarily sweep every single state to win, because the first to hit 270 is declared the winner.
There are several advantages and disadvantages to the system, and most of them are very logical consequences. One of the main advantages of the Electoral College system is that it gives more people a voice, more or less. If we were to use a direct system, where the people vote directly for the president, the states with low population would have a heavily diminished voice, in comparison to larger states like New York and California; presidential hopefuls probably wouldn't even bother campaigning in those states because it would be largely irrelevant.
Another advantage, which I think was the most intended by the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, is that the votes of the people can be superseded. As mentioned before, we vote for a representative who will cast their vote for a candidate. If our representatives were to think that we are making a poor choice about the candidate we are choosing, they can change their mind. It is an advantage in a sense, because you have some really uneducated and unaware people running around in America (especially America) who don't know anything about the government. Take for example this election, I am confident that racial supremists will be voting against Obama only because he is black. When Hillary was running, I am also sure that people would have voted for her and/or against her just because she was a woman.
A disadvantage of the system is the possibility that a candidate will win the popular vote, but not the presidency. This is the situation that Al Gore found himself in 2000, where he won over the nation, however was denied the seat. Again, it is a purposeful catch that the delegates put in. We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, should not be trusted to vote because we almost destroyed the nation the last time.
While I may not like the system so much, it has worked, and apparently well, for the past few two centuries. It was only on four occasions that the popular vote and electoral vote did not match. I don't vote, but I would think that it would be really annoying to have to vote for an elector who might not even vote for the runner I want. It's more than taking a leap of faith, because depending on the state, your vote might just be converted into a tally for the opposing candidate. It has elements of gambling in it: in order to leave the game with the money you want, you will have to invest. If you want to get a candidate into office, you will have to risk your vote being turned over against your favor.
