Popular vote only elections can lead to more contested elections and drag out the election process.
Originally Posted by KookyCurl
Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that the electoral college makes it easier for states to count their votes? And it would somehow be more difficult for states to count their votes if we didn't have the electoral college?

We already count each individual vote before adding up the electoral college votes. The electoral college (or at least the modern version of it that we use) is just a different way of adding up the total once you have the individual votes counted. Elections without the electoral college would not be any more difficult or drawn-out or more contested than they already are.
Originally Posted by tmmy_cat


I disagree. I believe they would be much more difficult and drawn out.

Say a candidate wins the popular election by a very thin margin. A recount may be demanded. Instead of isolating which state(s) the recount would have an effect in we would have to recount EVERY vote. This takes time and money. Often things small municipalities are in short supply of already, even some large ones. Say this changes the vote. The original winner would then demand another recount. Where would the madness end?
Originally Posted by KookyCurl
A) Only states that were very close would need to be recounted (which is very similar to the way it is now)

B) Even if it is more difficult, it's worth it because the election would be more fair! Which would you rather have - an easy election where some people's votes count more than others? Or a difficult, thorough election where everyone's vote counts equally? I am in favor of making elections fair at any cost.

If you thought this through, then by all means, share that reasoning with us! I haven't seen any of it yet.