3 ms·
The elephant in the room is voter fraud. If we switch to raw vote count then it takes just one loosely regulated precinct to flood the election with fraudulent
by yters 6y ago
The elephant in the room is voter fraud. If we switch to raw vote count then it takes just one loosely regulated precinct to flood the election with fraudulent votes to win the election, and anyone can do this. Sure, this time around one group may win the fraud vote, but next time it will be another group, and the the best fraudsters will conspire to run the country and we will cease to be a democracy and become a kleptocracy. At least with the electoral college the fraud has to be much better organized and spread more across the country.
- IneffablePigeon 6y agoCarrying out voter fraud is pointless unless you can do it without being detected. If you flood one precinct with enough votes to swing an entire election it becomes very obvious that something fishy went on there. The only way to rig the election with voter fraud and get away with it is exactly the same - by spreading your fraudulent votes thinly so that no one area is too suspicious.
- yters 6y agoEven so, eliminating the college makes it easier. We need defense in depth to maintain rule of the people.
- zhoujianfu 6y agoIt seems like it’d be a lot harder to swing a National popular vote election fraudulently, where you’d need to register millions of fraudulent votes, than an electoral college vote where at times you’d only need a few thousand? Or even just a couple high-pressure phone calls...
- yters 6y agoThat's a good point. There would be fewer votes required. My thinking is when spread across more distinct political regions a greater amount of collusion is required across a more diverse political body, even if the raw vote count is smaller. In my mind this seems harder to pull off, but I can see where you are coming from.