[techman9]

I do wonder whether the electoral college system somewhat insulates the US from election tampering or voter fraud. The current system disaggregates election certification to the state level, which is then made official by a discrete vote of the electoral college. For instance, if Donald Trump wants to claim that the election was rigged or tampered with, it's sort of moot as it's ultimately up to the state electors.

It feels like in the face of this, it's very hard for one candidate to dispute the election, as it's ultimately resolved by electoral vote. If we were to change the system to one based only a national first past the post poll, even one certified by vote totals from individual states, I wonder how you'd ensure an impartial certification of the final result.

[cmurf]

We don't have the Electoral College Hamilton envisioned in Federalist 68. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

They were supposed to be regular people, not politicians. And certainly not the worst people ever conceived: party loyalists. That's The system we use.

It's also not the ultimate decision making body. If the results are disputed, and no candidate gets 270 Electors, House of Representatives chooses the president, one vote per state. Senate choose VP, one vote per senator.

[jonathankoren]

Elections are run by the states, not the federal government. We have — and would still have, since the electors aren’t even bound until after the election — to have 57 separate elections. It’s this separation that adds a level of security, not the EC.