The Electoral College Minimizes the Impact of Fraud and Error
No election system can completely eliminate the element of human error or the tendency of some dishonest individuals to cheat. An election system can, however, minimize the extent to which these human errors and fraudulent behavior impact elections. The Electoral College defends against fraudulent behavior and human error in two ways: First, the system makes it difficult to predict where stolen votes will make a difference. In a direct election system, any stolen vote matters, but under the Electoral College system, stolen votes impact the election only if they are stolen in the right location. Second, to the degree that fraud and errors do occur, the Electoral College makes it possible to isolate the problem to one or a handful of states.
The 2000 election provides an excellent example of the Electoral College in action. Yes, several hundred stolen votes in Florida would have changed the election. But stealing these votes would have required knowing in advance that such a small number of votes in that particular state could swing the outcome of the election. Even if someone had successfully guessed that a handful of votes in Florida would change the election, surely this guess would have been the exception, rather than the rule. Moreover, the Electoral College made it possible for the nation to isolate the problem to Florida. The nation was in suspense for weeks at the end of 2000, waiting to see how the election would come out. However, the situation could have been much worse. Recounts could have ensued in virtually every state of the Union; instead, the focus was on a handful of counties in Florida. Under a direct election scheme, a national recount (complete with lawsuits in many states, not just Florida) could easily have occurred and left the country in suspense for months.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote . In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state.
Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party's precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ― far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore's margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 recounts was a mere 274 votes.
First, the 2000 election WAS stolen.. never forget this.
Al Gore got about half a million votes more than G.W. Bush.
Next, your 2 main arguments don't stand any chance against a statistical and logical analysis.
"Under electoral college system, stolen votes impact the election only if they are stolen in the right location"
Given the number of polls available and sophistication of vote analysis per category of population, it is not difficult at all to predict which races will be "toss-up" and it takes so much less effort to reverse a 5,000 votes difference than a 500,000 one. To fraud to the extent of 500,000 votes would require a nationwide concerted action. What are the chances of keeping this effort under cover ?
And the recount argument is also extremely weak.. Who would ask for a recount against such a huge difference ? However, when you're faced with a defeat and you know that a small amounts of votes (less than 1000) would reverse 10% of the Electoral college votes your candidate needs, it is how so tempting, even without a good cause.