Impossible to say, because it's so ingrained...it's like asking if a football field should be 305 yards. But, trying to imagine inventing the game from scratch, like you'd make up a game to play with your brothers in the backyard...I'd bet you'd make it a little bigger. Maybe three golf ball diameters...so 5".
This sums up what I remember reading about it a long time ago:
Basically in that day and age, they were politely saying that they couldn't trust an uneducated public who may not be capable of electing the right candidate with the information they had.
I'm sure there's a heavy dose of familiarity influencing this, but I think 4.25" is about the perfect size. It's large enough to make a five or even ten-foot putt feel quite "makeable" while also making a 30-footer feel like you have to do something really well to make it.
If the hole was any smaller, it'd be really difficult to make putts from outside of three feet.
If it was any larger, five-footers would start to feel like tap-ins.
What's the perfect hole size, in your opinion, or did we accidentally achieve it?
P.S. 4.25/1.68 ~= 2.5.
Nebraska and Maine do that. Personally, I actually think that's a better system...it allows states to manage voting tech and still avoids the "nationwide recount" problem.
It's worth noting that there is no direct voting system that can't create crazy paradoxes (where the candidate who loses would have been preferred by more people than the winner). Ranked-choice has this same issue.
Personally, I don't like the Electoral College system because it encourages a two-party system, which I think is detrimental overall.
I think I saw a map accompanying a poll the other day that led me to believe that there is only one (Nebraska??) State that does proportional votes.
I could be wrong though. :)
EDIT: Quick Wiki search seems to show that Maine also (I was correct about Neb) breaks down their votes, but the other 49 "states" (counting DC) are all to the winner.
I think the whole thing is a bit outdated and unnecessary at this point, but I dunno.