If Republicans win the PV but lose the EC...

[J. J.]

I think a lot of people see the value of the EC.  There always has been the possibility of a candidate that would run exceptionally strongly in a geographic area, and running up a huge pile of votes.

A conservative may not want a president of New York, New Jersey, and New England, but how many liberals would want a President of the Bible Belt? 

I will note that there were times when Republicans ran up huge margins in California, and there was never a call to abolish the EC.

The EC can help moderate polarization. 

[J. J.]

I think a lot of people see the value of the EC.  There always has been the possibility of a candidate that would run exceptionally strongly in a geographic area, and running up a huge pile of votes.

A conservative may not want a president of New York, New Jersey, and New England, but how many liberals would want a President of the Bible Belt? 

I will note that there were times when Republicans ran up huge margins in California, and there was never a call to abolish the EC.

The EC can help moderate polarization. 

It also, as we saw in 2000 and 2016, makes the whole result potentially chaotically susceptible to comparatively tiny swings of opinion in a couple of small places. The “regional support” argument doesn’t work for Trump/against Clinton because WI/MI/PA were basically statistical ties.

The "small places" represent 8.5% of the population, and they really are not regionally together.  I certainly would not classify those states as Northeast or Midwest.

[J. J.]

I think a lot of people see the value of the EC.  There always has been the possibility of a candidate that would run exceptionally strongly in a geographic area, and running up a huge pile of votes.

A conservative may not want a president of New York, New Jersey, and New England, but how many liberals would want a President of the Bible Belt? 

I will note that there were times when Republicans ran up huge margins in California, and there was never a call to abolish the EC.

The EC can help moderate polarization. 

It also, as we saw in 2000 and 2016, makes the whole result potentially chaotically susceptible to comparatively tiny swings of opinion in a couple of small places. The “regional support” argument doesn’t work for Trump/against Clinton because WI/MI/PA were basically statistical ties.

The "small places" represent 8.5% of the population, and they really are not regionally together.  I certainly would not classify those states as Northeast or Midwest.

You’re being willfully obtuse.

No, that is my point.  You did not have regionalism in 2016.

[J. J.]

Pointbeing, when the regionalism argument doesn’t apply, you’ve got cases like 2016 and 2000 where the electoral college serves only to turn an election into a coin flip for no good reason.

No, because if there was not an electoral college, candidates would try to maximize their votes in their strongholds.  Hillary Clinton would not have to even try to appeal to people in Pennsylvania; she would be in California trying to maximize her vote their.  She would not need to try to appeal to a broader segment of the country. 

We complain about polarization now,but this would knock it into overdrive.