> You never know which states are going to be swing states from election to election. Therefore, it’s difficult if not impossible to set up a “machine” to defraud the election.
It’s relatively predictable, which is why the presidential campaign usually only covers about a quarter of the states. Yes, Clinton didn’t identify the battleground correctly.
> If you only had to worry about the popular vote, you would only have to concentrate on setting up a permanent fraud team in California, and you could concentrate it in the urban areas.
One fraudulent vote in California doesn’t get you any more than one fraudulent vote anywhere else under a national popular vote — which is less sensitive to small changes. An election that could be changed by 1,000 fraudulent votes under the Electoral College would typically require 40,000 fraudulent votes in a national popular vote.
It’s not just fraud, though. Weather, counting error, voter roll purges — anything that produces a comparatively small effect is more likely to flip an Electoral College election.
> So when someone claims “uncertainty”, you give them a “mulligan” and retry it?
If the claim is credible enough, yes. It costs a lot less than a civil war, and if you HAVE fraudulent ballots in the system — or illegal destruction of ballots prior to counting, or any other major episodes of electoral misbehavior — a recount won’t fix that.
Let me repeat that key point: A second election costs a lot less than a civil war.
> If that is not the case, what is to stop me from running as an elector for Elizabeth Warren in 2020 so I can sabotage her candidacy?
In some states, effectively nothing; and trying to litigate your vote after the fact could lead to a constitutional crisis. Which is troublesome, but an inevitable consequence of using a system in a way that it wasn’t meant to be used.
> This is a wonderful thing. It keeps people from the urban areas of California, New York and Florida from choosing every president.
No, it doesn’t. In fact, out of ten elections close enough to be decided by a single state, New York alone accounts for five; and the decisive role of Florida in the 2000 election is very well explored.
For about half a century (look to the late 19th century), New York City politics had a major influence on presidential politics, because New York was the largest swing state and therefore had enormous influence in the Electoral College.