If the EC is good for the Presidency, how about governor elections?

[rob in cal]

   It seems to me that many of the arguments in favor of the EC for Presidential elections could also translate for governors elections as well, especially in cases of heavily populated, diverse states.  To my knowledge, however, no one in US politics has ever advocated each state setting up their own mini-electoral college for governor elections. Probably because the opposition to such a move might snowball into support for a national move to abolish the EC.

[rob in cal]

  Were those governors elected by a mini electoral college or the state legislatures? I know in South Carolina the governor was elected by the legislature until after the Civil War.

[Sir Mohamed]

In VT, the state legislature elects the gov if he or she gets less than 50% of the vote.

[Del Tachi]

In VT, the state legislature elects the gov if he or she gets less than 50% of the vote.

Same in Mississippi and a few other states I believe


To answer the question though, it has to do with the nature of our federal system.  States are not component parts of the national government, they are entirely separate and sovereign entities that maintain certain rights under the Constitution.  One of these rights includes the ability for state legislatures to direct the manner in which presidential electors are selected.  In that sense, maintaining the electoral college is not about ensuring a diverse geographic coalition is needed to elect a President, its about maintaining a check that the States have on the federal government per the Constitution.   

On the other hand, State governments are unitary rather than federal in nature.  Generally speaking, counties and cities are established by and exist at the leisure of state legislatures (the only exception I can think of are the "independent" cities in Virginia, but its somewhat questionable how much of an exception they are).  So, cities and counties are not component parts of the state governments; whereas, the federal government was formed by a voluntary cessation of authority by state governments, thus necessitating the federal nature of the electoral college. 

[SteveRogers]

Some states did indeed use such systems, but the Supreme Court actually declared them unconstitutional as a violation of the one person, one vote principle in Gray v. Sanders in 1963. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_v._Sanders

[SingingAnalyst]

In MI, FL and probably other states prior to the 1960s, seats were allocated by land area, which gave an obvious disadvantage to urban areas. In MI, for example, losing statewide Republicans typically carry at least 20-30 or so counties (out of 83) while it is not unusual for a losing Dem to carry only Wayne (as in 1998) or Wayne and a handful of others.

[Nichlemn]

No-one would support an EC in any place that doesn't have it, because the only arguments are ad hoc justifications of the status quo. I guarantee that if it were abolished today, support for re-establishing it would soon drop to near zero levels, at least among new generations of voters.

[ag]

In some states, the Governor was actually elected by a electoral college in earlier times.

In Mexico in the 19th century EC was even used to elect members of Congress and of state legislatures. Nothing new there