Even before the votes were cast Tuesday, the likelihood of an unusually close election had revived concerns that the winner would become the third candidate in the nation's history to win the popular vote but lose the presidency in the Electoral College. Defenders of the Electoral College admit it has its flaws, but argue that direct election would be worse. Determining the president based on popular vote would encourage a flood of third-party candidacies to prevent anyone from winning a majority, they say. In the subsequent runoff election, the third parties could try to trade their support for political or personal favors. California would appear to be a prime beneficiary of a move to get rid of the Electoral College, which gives smaller states much more say in electing the president.
Direct election ought to benefit the large populous states at the expense of smaller ones.
Many Americans don't realize they're not voting for a president every four years, but for a slate of electors who meet in each state capital in December to officially choose the next occupant of the White House. Electoral votes are allotted to each state based roughly on population, with the total equaling the number of members of Congress from that state. The nationwide total is 538. But small states benefit because they are guaranteed to have two senators and at least one representative. Each candidate has a different slate of electors, usually activists or former elected officials from the candidate's own political party.