The best argument for using popular vote for presidential race.

[Nordberg]

It's about power and concentrating it in the hand of a few.

If your "it refers to the EC, then you are right. The EC allows a minority to determine our presidents with regularity. That is wrong in principle.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Exactly

Damn, I'm so glad you two are in this forum.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

There is no good argument to Federalize our elections.

The best three reasons I think to deep-six the Electoral College are:

Scenario 1: 49 states become solid red/blue (yes hypothetical but it could happen). If you only have one or two swing states, it would be much easier to commit widespread fraud over a smaller population/area/local government. Especially by an adversarial government.

Scenario 2: Theoretically, the way the Electoral College works now, a presidential candidate could win the election with less than 30% of the popular vote. Methinks that right there disqualifies it as a legitimate election process.

Scenario 3: Election Day in California, 50% vote Dem, 49% vote Rep. 55 Electoral Votes go to Washington. 49% of the people who voted in California are disenfranchised. Their vote is not heard.

 

[Nordberg]

The best three reasons I think to deep-six the Electoral College are:

Scenario 1: 49 states become solid red/blue (yes hypothetical but it could happen). If you only have one or two swing states, it would be much easier to commit widespread fraud over a smaller population/area/local government. Especially by an adversarial government.

Scenario 2: Theoretically, the way the Electoral College works now, a presidential candidate could win the election with less than 30% of the popular vote. Methinks that right there disqualifies it as a legitimate election process.

Scenario 3: Election Day in California, 50% vote Dem, 49% vote Rep. 55 Electoral Votes go to Washington. 49% of the people who voted in California are disenfranchised. Their vote is not heard.

Why would fraud be easier to commit.? If all eyes were on those places, it would be more difficult.

 

[Flash]

The Electoral system was put in place back in the 1800s so candidates wouldn't only campaign in urban, highly-populated areas but would go to the low-populated rural areas as well. But with mass communications, that's not the case anymore.

You make some good points, but I don't think the electoral college system had anything to do with
campaigning. The electoral college in the Constitution did not and still does not provide for popular votes and there would be no reason to campaign. The popular votes were adopted later by the individual states. It did seek to prevent any area from dominating the results.

States can devise their own method of apportioning electors and they could give the same percentage of electors as percent of the popular vote to take care of the "winner-take-all" objection.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Why would fraud be easier to commit.? If all eyes were on those places, it would be more difficult.

If they knew where to look but if a foreign adversarial government like Russia or China used a sophisticated system to corrupt the voting process, the smaller the easier.

 

[Flash]

But you CAN win by focusing on the larger states. If all you have to do to win all 100% of the the big states electoral votes is campaign enough to win only 51% of the votes, then you don't even have to focus.

You don't need a majority (51%) of a state's popular votes to win all of its electoral votes. You only need the most votes (a plurality). That is true for almost all offices.

It is Maine and Nebraska (not Nevada)