(01-28-2020 08:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

1. If this is a good way to ensure rural voters are adequately represented in presidential elections, then it should be a good way to do the same in Gubernatorial and Senatorial elections, and other statewide elections.

2. Don't see this. It does seem to help underdogs, but underdogs do not always align with my views, or yours.

That the Electoral College provides a firewall to voting fraud is indisputable. That this is a good thing is indisputable.

If we went to direct voting, then every losing candidate could allege voting fraud in any place in every state, and a full recount would be impossible. Think Florida 2000 times 1000.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to keep the EC, and even to expand the concept to statewide elections.

To the bolded - what election, besides presidential, does not do direct, first past the poll, voting?

All US House and Senate races match that description, yet we don't have Florida x 2,000...

It's undeniable that the electoral college does create a process that helps to dilute the potential effects of ballot box stuffing, but let's not get carried away with the idea that the EC is some savior of a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

Without the electoral college, any recount would require be the entire nation be recounted. Not just the one jurisdiction. I think that is the point OO is making.

Not just that, but the ability to cherry pick 'precincts that went bad' would jump dramatically.

No other offices match the description of a nationwide vote. You are missing the point when you refer to 'first past the finish'.