[wakawaka28]

I think it's different. In any case, you can imagine a scenario where different states have wildly different voter turnout. That could even happen due to a natural disaster such as the hurricanes we've seen in the past few weeks. How messed up would it be for a state ravaged by a hurricane, tsunami, earthquake, or whatever to have its influence diminished because people were unable to vote? It is already bad enough that the votes could be skewed based on specific counties. But imagine the whole state losing its actual representation because of power outages and stuff. It might even encourage some states to sabotage other states, to reduce turnout.

[Apocryphon]

> But imagine the whole state losing its actual representation because of power outages and stuff.

What you are describing would be a problem regardless of the presence of the electoral college.

[wakawaka28]

It is more of a problem without the electoral college, because as I said the popular vote is sensitive to voter turnout. No turnout means no representation. The electors can always step up to represent their state, and if even they can't then presumably the entire election would be delayed.

[Apocryphon]

I’m not sure if the electors are legally allowed to decide in the absence of voter turnout. Besides, if you can suppress popular vote, you can also suppress the electors.

[wakawaka28]

It is far more likely that electors can do what they need to do. They can be substituted if some candidates become unavailable. However, there is no replacement for voters. Barring an emergency that completely stops a state from having elections, the decision will be made. I've never heard of a state election being delayed due to natural disasters or anything. There is no minimum required voter turnout for a conclusion to be reached, in any case.