Anyone suggesting a change to the popular vote is suggesting that New York City and Los Angeles be given control over who holds the office of presidency. Obviously, blue people would be thrilled, and red people don't like it.

Personally, I would prefer the electoral college remain, with the added proviso that if a candidate is unable to carry over 50% of the total possible popular votes, there is no president for that term.

I'm fine with the electoral college, but only if all of the states are required to split their electoral votes, winner takes any partials.

The United States can't even ensure that the votes cast are by an eligible person (ie minnesota) or that the person voting is the actual person the vote is representing.

Add reasonable safeguards (reasonable in the vein that the Brady Campagin views gun laws) and I'll consider a popular vote. I do however think that electoral votes need to be split. Pennsylvania used to be simple- win Philly and Pittsburgh and you won the state. We need to eliminate the idea of "flyover country"

This is a red herring. The United States doesn't have a voter fraud problem. Sure there are instances of voter fraud, there always will be, regardless of what safeguards we have. However the percentages of that are very small.

That's a false argument, you say they are small because you can't check.

Do you mean total population of franchised adults per. the census, total registered voters, or total voters in a given election year?

Total eligible voters voters, per the census.

For instance, suppose the nation has 330,000,000 people living within it. Further suppose that 200,000,000 of those are adults over the age of 18 who are eligible to vote. Let us then suppose that a Democratic presidential candidate carries 52,000,000 votes, and a Republican presidential candidate carries 48,000,000 votes. This means that there are 148,000,000 eligible voters who do not support the Democratic presidential candidate. That candidate has the support of only 26% of the population. The country has overwhelmingly rejected that candidate. Therefore, that candidate should not be permitted to take office.

That's a false argument, you say they are small because you can't check.

Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.

Summary

* Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.
* Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud.
* Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct.
* Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.
* Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.

In 2007 a New York Times story on the Bush Justice Department’s effort to find and punish voter fraud reported that the Justice Department “has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.” The reporters found: “Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process.” But the reporters concluded that after five years only 86 people in the whole nation had been convicted and most of those involved misunderstandings of the rules, not intentional fraud.

Total eligible voters voters, per the census.

For instance, suppose the nation has 330,000,000 people living within it. Further suppose that 200,000,000 of those are adults over the age of 18 who are eligible to vote. Let us then suppose that a Democratic presidential candidate carries 52,000,000 votes, and a Republican presidential candidate carries 48,000,000 votes. This means that there are 148,000,000 eligible voters who do not support the Democratic presidential candidate. That candidate has the support of only 26% of the population. The country has overwhelmingly rejected that candidate. Therefore, that candidate should not be permitted to take office.

That's funny, because much of the praise heaped upon the U.S. soldiers of WWII was their ability to make decisions and perform their functions without direction from superior officers. Then there's the fact that of the two land borders we have, one of them shows no signs of being violated in the near future, and any country with a significant navy is unable to arrive quickly.

So, you will understand if I do not consider your attempted rebuttal with any real concern.

The electoral college the way it's set up now is my personal pet peeve, It's broken.
the winner take all needs to go away. it should be votes are cast by the districts they represent, and state wide popular vote gets the other two.
This will add more significance to more rural areas, and have a huge impact on states like New york, and Kalifornia when the vote gets split in those states.