So we agree that you are able to come up w/ a virtually infinitely long list of reasons why we need to abolish the EC. You may or may not be aware of the fact that half the population of the U.S. can come up w/ a list infinitely long of reasons in favor of the EC. This means that you having your list gets you nowhere.
Are we together on this?
By that view, this discussion isn't worth having.
But if you list a reason, and i try to show you with facts and figures why your reason is wrong, or at the very least insufficently supportive of your position, and you attempt to defend your reason against my objections, then there is a possibility that one of us, or someone reading along, may learn something new about the way we percieve this issue.
I want somebody who claims that NY and CA would determine every election in the absence of the EC to show how this might be possible given the fact that the majority party in these populous states are given a greater advantage by the EC.
Nearly every answer I get comes from someone who is painfully unaware that states' whole populations don't/can't vote, and even if they could, no amount of extra attention in by the candidates could get a whole state to vote unanimously.
I hope for an answer that acknowledges a realistic view of how things are and could be.
Your answer takes us on a different route and suggests that the reason why is the potential for fraud.
I say this is insufficient as a reason to keep the EC because the potential for fraud is there now.
If your ability to defend your position has reached its limit, feel free to stop responding to my posts.
