Isn't abolishing EC, etc. a Democratic power grab in some voters eyes?

[Stranger in a strange land]

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1108250617909112833

Every single person, black or white, who lives in a state where they voted for the loser has their vote erased.  For some reason I don't think you care about voters in Vermont, Massachusetts, etc. who have their vote "erased".  This is a really dumb tweet.

Exactly, which is why the EC should be abolished.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Call me crazy, but I think the vote of a Republican in Massachusetts should count just as much as a Democrat in Alabama's should. I also think the Senate should be elected by nationwide PR.

[Badger]

The direct popular vote should be abolished. Return to electors appointed by state legislatures.

What insanely bad idea unworthy of even remotely serious consideration or response.

Seriously, that is some seriously Galaxy brain thinking of I'm so much smarter than the plebeians that political nerds like me should really have power in this world rather than the Great unwashed who pay our taxes, fight our Wars, make our country run, that it is just painfully embarrassing to see actually proposed.

[Senator Incitatus]

The direct popular vote should be abolished. Return to electors appointed by state legislatures.

What insanely bad idea unworthy of even remotely serious consideration or response.

Seriously, that is some seriously Galaxy brain thinking of I'm so much smarter than the plebeians that political nerds like me should really have power in this world rather than the Great unwashed who pay our taxes, fight our Wars, make our country run, that it is just painfully embarrassing to see actually proposed.

Political nerds like you should absolutely have less power in this world. That's not what I was proposing, you crank.

[Badger]

Although addressing any one of bronzes threads is kind of an exercise in masochism, since this is actually gain some legs I'll be happy to respond. The entire praise power grab implies and undemocratic and unfair taking of Power by means that are entirely self-serving. When in fact, that is exactly what the existence of the Electoral College oh, and the election of multiple presidents who failed to win the popular vote by a million or millions of votes.

There is no "power grab" in seeking to abolish what is is clearly an anachronistic, undemocratic, and above all useless unless one insist on electing Republicans who lose the popular vote, Vestige of the 18th

Citing the founders the founders the founders over and over again is a Bloody Lane excuse. Yes, they were some of the smartest Sons of Guns who ever lived and built a beautiful framework of federalism with fundamental enshrined rights of freedom of the press, speech, religion, against unlawful search and seizure, etc etc etc. However, those same brilliant Bunch also enshrined women not voting, slavery, election of the Senate by the state legislature because Ordinary People are too dumb and uncivilized to elect a body of high thinking fois de rois. The Electoral College clearly Falls in this second category of bad and Antiquated ideas which our country has mercifully moved Beyond.

Seriously, I have yet to see one remotely non laughable argument in favor of the Electoral College dust far in this thread. It is patently clear that support to the Electoral College amounts literally to " but that might wind up with President Elizabeth Warren!!"

[DrScholl]

Here is the deal:

I think the Electoral College should be phased out, eventually abolished, but that would be difficult. I would like NJ to get attention like it did in '88, '92, even '04.

But the Heartland should be focused on as well as LA/NY/SF/Boston.

GOP needs to expand their appeal and their base. They may be too maxed out with rural, white voters.

The Democrats need to expand with WWC in the Heartland. They need to stop crying whenever someone mentions voter fraud because voter fraud clearly exists, and it always pops up in urban enclaves sometimes.

The white working class is a shrinking class and Democrats do not need them since they will be a non-factor within a couple of decades. And as far as fraud the biggest case we've had was out of NC-9 and the Republican was stealing Democratic ballots. That aside, you can't you always and sometimes in the same sentence, that makes no sense.

So, are you saying that Democrats don't need to campaign in places like Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, etc?

Iowa is workable, Ohio might be worth a small effort, but Missouri is a total waste of time at this point.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Isn't keeping EC, etc. a Republican continuing power grab?

[7,052,770]

Presidential candidates are primarily going to campaign in big and medium-big cities (including large suburbs) in any system.

Abolishing the electoral college opens it up to all of them, instead of just a handful of them like Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and other swing state cities. Why can't Houston, Los Angeles, Spokane, Oklahoma City, DC, Albany, New Orleans, and Salt Lake City get some attention too?

[Bojack Horseman]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

The framers also wanted slavery, an appointed Senate, and for women to be property with no rights and we got rid of all three.

Those three things are morally wrong. Allowing all 50 states to decide an election, instead of 4 gigantic states (CA, TX, FL, and NY) is morally correct.

Boy you didn't think that sentence all the way through. We already have four states deciding every election.

[Suburbia]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

The framers also wanted slavery, an appointed Senate, and for women to be property with no rights and we got rid of all three.

Those three things are morally wrong. Allowing all 50 states to decide an election, instead of 4 gigantic states (CA, TX, FL, and NY) is morally correct.

Boy you didn't think that sentence all the way through. We already have four states deciding every election.

Which is boring in a sense.

[Del Tachi]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

[Del Tachi]

2. By the same token that nationalizing voting procedures would be a de facto Democratic power grab, allowing state governments (which tend to be overrepresented by Republicans) to dictate how a state performs its elections is a de facto Republican power grab. Federalism isn't inherently good or bad. Policies that are implemented are good and bad and giving states the power to, e.g., disenfranchise felons, or enact other corrosive policies in the name of federalism is abusive and ideologically disingenuous.

The electoral college corrects for this in that, no matter how restrictive or permissive a state's voting procedures are, the state's influence on the eventual outcome remains fixed.  In the absence of the electoral college, states would quickly begin a race to increase their electoral influence.  California could act to keep a Republican nominee off the general election ballot (perhaps under a tax release pretense), almost assuring a Democratic plurality in the national popular vote.  The electoral college precludes this type of abuse. 

Of course, your answer to this is to completely federalize our elections and eliminate state/local control.  Besides having to establish the type of bureaucratic infrastructure such a move would require, national eligibility/registration standards would have to be legislated.  How long does someone have to live somewhere before they're eligible to vote?  Can incarcerated felons vote?  Is there going to be same-day registration?  early voting?  vote by mail?  I think these are all questions best handled at the state level.

[Joe Republic]

2. By the same token that nationalizing voting procedures would be a de facto Democratic power grab, allowing state governments (which tend to be overrepresented by Republicans) to dictate how a state performs its elections is a de facto Republican power grab. Federalism isn't inherently good or bad. Policies that are implemented are good and bad and giving states the power to, e.g., disenfranchise felons, or enact other corrosive policies in the name of federalism is abusive and ideologically disingenuous.

The electoral college corrects for this in that, no matter how restrictive or permissive a state's voting procedures are, the state's influence on the eventual outcome remains fixed.  In the absence of the electoral college, states would quickly begin a race to increase their electoral influence.  California could act to keep a Republican nominee off the general election ballot (perhaps under a tax release pretense), almost assuring a Democratic plurality in the national popular vote.  The electoral college precludes this type of abuse. 

Of course, your answer to this is to completely federalize our elections and eliminate state/local control.  Besides having to establish the type of bureaucratic infrastructure such a move would require, national eligibility/registration standards would have to be legislated.  How long does someone have to live somewhere before they're eligible to vote?  Can incarcerated felons vote?  Is there going to be same-day registration?  early voting?  vote by mail?  I think these are all questions best handled at the state level.

It makes perfect sense for an election to a federal office to be handled according to evenly applied federal standards.  Even leaving the EC aside, why on earth does it make any current sense for there to be dozens of different rules and restrictions for how to register to vote, get on a ballot, cast a ballot, and count the ballots, depending on where you live?  Fine if you want to let the states decide those questions for state offices.  But federal elections must be dealt with according to an equal standard.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

1. Yes, it's a power grab.

2. It's a response to existing abuse / power grab by the Republicans, and about as technically legal.

3. Both the GOP's abuse of our electoral system and abolishing or subverting the EC are bad for the nation. Which is worse, I have no certain idea.

4. The overwhelming majority of public opposition to the National Popular Vote Compact, an amendment to eliminate the EC, or anything similar would be in bad faith, done only because "their side" (aka, the GOP) would be perceived as losing out.

5. That Republicans know their power would suffer if elections were made more representative should give them pause, but won't, because they collectively lack self-awareness.

6. Arguing for a national popular vote for President shows a dangerous disregard for the future, and an accompanying lack of long-term thinking.

7. A 'national popular vote' or the equivalent is a strong step towards rejecting the shared sovereignty that is at the heart of American governance, and seems to me a dismaying display of ignorance about what the United States is.

8. The electoral college is archaic, but I don't have a better idea.

9. I think that a strong or successful move to electing the President by national popular vote seems likely to be a strong indicator, if not actual cause, of the medium term breakup of, or revolution in,  the United States.

[SteveRogers]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

But if we had a national popular vote in 2000, the margin of error in Florida wouldn’t have mattered. Gore would have won the nationwide vote by over half a million votes. No recount required.

Sure, you could hypothetically have a razor-close nationwide popular vote. And sure, a nationwide recount sounds hard and could take a while. But it can obviously be done. Other populous, developed democracies elect presidents all the time by nationwide vote without devolving into chaos. Is there some reason why France can count votes but the idea is deemed impossible here? So why exactly would it be better to leave the fate of a close election up to the peculiar quirks of one state’s electoral bureaucracy a la Florida in 2000?

[Badger]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

But if we had a national popular vote in 2000, the margin of error in Florida wouldn’t have mattered. Gore would have won the nationwide vote by over half a million votes. No recount required.

Sure, you could hypothetically have a razor-close nationwide popular vote. And sure, a nationwide recount sounds hard and could take a while. But it can obviously be done. Other populous, developed democracies elect presidents all the time by nationwide vote without devolving into chaos. Is there some reason why France can count votes but the idea is deemed impossible here? So why exactly would it be better to leave the fate of a close election up to the peculiar quirks of one state’s electoral bureaucracy a la Florida in 2000?

Since you effectively asked the proper question to his second point, I will respond to its first. The Electoral College does nothing to create a federalist division in electing a president. While I agree with prior posts that it is silly to have 50 different standards and cruise tours voting in what should be a national election, even if we continue to allow a state to enforce individual standards, it doesn't begin to answer the question why the ultimate election should still be decided by some archaic division of votes over popular election.

The two issues are literally comparing apples and airplanes.

[SteveRogers]

7. A 'national popular vote' or the equivalent is a strong step towards rejecting the shared sovereignty that is at the heart of American governance, and seems to me a dismaying display of ignorance about what the United States is.

This might have been a legit argument if every single state legislature hadn’t already turned over the power of assigning their state’s electors to a statewide popular vote two centuries ago. The EC made perfect sense given the role that the founders originally intended for the office of the presidency, but it was already an anachronism by about 1828 when the idea took hold that the President was to be the only elected official who would answer to the people of the whole nation. Given that the electoral college no longer serves any of its original functions, I don’t really see how it’s abolition would effect the sovereignty of the states or the relative powers of the state and federal governments.

8. The electoral college is archaic, but I don't have a better idea.

What about that weird system that every other country uses? I believe they call it “voting.”

[emailking]

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

A Florida type situation is a bigger problem under a popular vote system, but is also a lot less likely to occur in the first place.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

As a general principle I think one man one vote is a good idea.

I'm afraid the logic whereby instituting one man one vote is a 'power grab' eludes me. Perhaps a blue avatar could explain?

[The Mikado]

It's not also like really large swing states at present (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida) won't see plenty of attention in the Popular Vote universe. There's a lot of people in those states!

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

7. A 'national popular vote' or the equivalent is a strong step towards rejecting the shared sovereignty that is at the heart of American governance, and seems to me a dismaying display of ignorance about what the United States is.

Having a president at all was a strong step toward rejecting what the United States was prior to 1787. Systems of government can change when existing structures are shown to be inadequate.

[Del Tachi]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

But if we had a national popular vote in 2000, the margin of error in Florida wouldn’t have mattered. Gore would have won the nationwide vote by over half a million votes. No recount required.

Sure, you could hypothetically have a razor-close nationwide popular vote. And sure, a nationwide recount sounds hard and could take a while. But it can obviously be done. Other populous, developed democracies elect presidents all the time by nationwide vote without devolving into chaos. Is there some reason why France can count votes but the idea is deemed impossible here? So why exactly would it be better to leave the fate of a close election up to the peculiar quirks of one state’s electoral bureaucracy a la Florida in 2000?

France is able to get away with it because they have a unitary government where voting standards are set uniformly across the entire country, so presumably there is a mechanism in place where a nationwide recount could be fairly executed.  In the United States there exists no such system.  I understand this response is "begging the question",  but I'm raising it because switching to a national popular vote requires a lot more reform and change than its proponents will readily admit (we can't simply go about counting votes the same way we do now under a popular vote system).  I don't think there exists the kind of popular support it would take to federalize our nation's election system, and talk of this issue is painfully absent from discussions about abolishing the electoral college.

[Del Tachi]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

But if we had a national popular vote in 2000, the margin of error in Florida wouldn’t have mattered. Gore would have won the nationwide vote by over half a million votes. No recount required.

Sure, you could hypothetically have a razor-close nationwide popular vote. And sure, a nationwide recount sounds hard and could take a while. But it can obviously be done. Other populous, developed democracies elect presidents all the time by nationwide vote without devolving into chaos. Is there some reason why France can count votes but the idea is deemed impossible here? So why exactly would it be better to leave the fate of a close election up to the peculiar quirks of one state’s electoral bureaucracy a la Florida in 2000?

Since you effectively asked the proper question to his second point, I will respond to its first. The Electoral College does nothing to create a federalist division in electing a president. While I agree with prior posts that it is silly to have 50 different standards and cruise tours voting in what should be a national election, even if we continue to allow a state to enforce individual standards, it doesn't begin to answer the question why the ultimate election should still be decided by some archaic division of votes over popular election.

The two issues are literally comparing apples and airplanes.

I've already answered this question.  Doing a national popular vote under the current system quickly establishes a "race to the bottom" where states are incentivized to pass laws increasing their influence over the national outcome (i.e., California keeping a Republican off the ballot because he won't release his income tax returns).  The "archaic division of votes" fixes each state's influence over the national outcome in a way that deincentivizes this kind of behavior. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

Also, there's no intrinsic reason why the Republicans can't win the popular vote. They've done it as recently as 2004. They would just have to change their positions somewhat to appeal to more voters.

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

But if we had a national popular vote in 2000, the margin of error in Florida wouldn’t have mattered. Gore would have won the nationwide vote by over half a million votes. No recount required.

Sure, you could hypothetically have a razor-close nationwide popular vote. And sure, a nationwide recount sounds hard and could take a while. But it can obviously be done. Other populous, developed democracies elect presidents all the time by nationwide vote without devolving into chaos. Is there some reason why France can count votes but the idea is deemed impossible here? So why exactly would it be better to leave the fate of a close election up to the peculiar quirks of one state’s electoral bureaucracy a la Florida in 2000?

Since you effectively asked the proper question to his second point, I will respond to its first. The Electoral College does nothing to create a federalist division in electing a president. While I agree with prior posts that it is silly to have 50 different standards and cruise tours voting in what should be a national election, even if we continue to allow a state to enforce individual standards, it doesn't begin to answer the question why the ultimate election should still be decided by some archaic division of votes over popular election.

The two issues are literally comparing apples and airplanes.

I've already answered this question.  Doing a national popular vote under the current system quickly establishes a "race to the bottom" where states are incentivized to pass laws increasing their influence over the national outcome (i.e., California keeping a Republican off the ballot because he won't release his income tax returns).  The "archaic division of votes" fixes each state's influence over the national outcome in a way that deincentivizes this kind of behavior. 

Or said candidate could simply release his tax returns. Just a thought.

[Badger]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

1.  It was obviously the intent of the Founders to establish a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, of which the electoral college is an integral component (as it is the only check state governments have on the executive branch of government).  An electoral college is a necessary consequence of a federal system where state governments maintain control over the franchise.  Transitioning to a national popular vote requires the federalization of our elections, and that's not something that I suspect a majority of Americans would support.

2.  The electoral college is actually the only mechanism that could have resolved the Florida election debacle.  The protracted recount had no impact on any outcome other than Florida's 25 electoral votes, and if Florida had been allowed to continue its recounts (as it probably should have), then Congress would have ultimately decided the fate of Florida's electors.  It's unclear how an excruciatingly close election would be decided under a national popular vote - a nationwide recount?  A close national election under the popular vote would trigger hundreds of lawsuits in Federal court, which could make an election unresolvable for months.

But if we had a national popular vote in 2000, the margin of error in Florida wouldn’t have mattered. Gore would have won the nationwide vote by over half a million votes. No recount required.

Sure, you could hypothetically have a razor-close nationwide popular vote. And sure, a nationwide recount sounds hard and could take a while. But it can obviously be done. Other populous, developed democracies elect presidents all the time by nationwide vote without devolving into chaos. Is there some reason why France can count votes but the idea is deemed impossible here? So why exactly would it be better to leave the fate of a close election up to the peculiar quirks of one state’s electoral bureaucracy a la Florida in 2000?

Since you effectively asked the proper question to his second point, I will respond to its first. The Electoral College does nothing to create a federalist division in electing a president. While I agree with prior posts that it is silly to have 50 different standards and cruise tours voting in what should be a national election, even if we continue to allow a state to enforce individual standards, it doesn't begin to answer the question why the ultimate election should still be decided by some archaic division of votes over popular election.

The two issues are literally comparing apples and airplanes.

I've already answered this question.  Doing a national popular vote under the current system quickly establishes a "race to the bottom" where states are incentivized to pass laws increasing their influence over the national outcome (i.e., California keeping a Republican off the ballot because he won't release his income tax returns).  The "archaic division of votes" fixes each state's influence over the national outcome in a way that deincentivizes this kind of behavior. 

No, you have offered no reason whatsoever why certain swing States under one party control at the state level, such as Ohio and Florida, or intermittently New Hampshire in Colorado, and to a lesser degree North Carolina, wouldn't passed such laws 2 increase their influence over the Electoral College outcome. There is literally nothing you've stated that isn't applicable to an electoral college situation. Furthermore, even non swing states trying to do things such as band Republicans from the presidential ballot would be struck down on constitutional grounds so fast it would make one's head swim.

[GoTfan]

Under the current system, it's theoretically possible to become President with 22% of the popular vote.

Are any other elections in the US decided by an electoral college?