> There's an additional problem, which is why isn't even harder to replace district voting, that those in charge of counting votes are local to each district, w

> There's an additional problem, which is why isn't even harder to replace district voting, that those in charge of counting votes are local to each district, which is letting the car guard the cream. American elections are administered locally to prevent top-down rigging, especially from the federal to the state level. Presumably local politicians will be more accountable to local people than an election authority across the country. And if the local people don't want to hold them accountable because they like them, then the politician is at least representing their contstituency in some way. And from the perspective of other districts, a corrupt district cannot affect their own elections, only send, at worst, a representative they don't like as if the two districts sinply disagreed. If a national election authority were corrupted, there wouldn't be anything local political organizations could do, especially if this applied to local executive or judicial positions. And of course the original states were not going to cede the counting of their votes the federal government. The electoral college is widely operated as a winner-takes-all system because it means that no state has to trust any other.