Even with a single pool of 122,000,000 votes, it is conceivable that the nationwide popular vote could someday be extremely close (say, a few hundred or a few thousand votes out of 122,000,000). In that event, the inevitable recount and controversy would be handled in the same way as its is currently handled—that is, under the generally serviceable laws that govern all elections. The guiding principle in such circumstances should be that all votes should be counted as fairly and expeditiously as possible.

In terms of logistics, the personnel and procedures for a nationwide recount are already in place because every state is always prepared to conduct a statewide recount after any election. Indeed, there are statewide recounts for certain statewide offices and ballot propositions in virtually every election cycle. As Senator David Durenberger (R–Minnesota) said in the Senate in 1979, "There is no reason to doubt the ability of the States and localities to manage a recount, and nothing to suggest that a candidate would frivolously incur the expense of requesting one. And even if this were not the case, the potential danger in selecting a President rejected by a majority of the voters far outweighs the potential inconvenience in administering a recount."

This is how the U.S. ended up with Lincoln as president. In his day, the candidate was decided at the convention – one day voting. Instead of a primary strategy, a candidate focused on two key areas: strategic voting and a delegate selection and seating.

Lincoln wasn't close to the most popular choice, there were two others with much more support, but neither had majority support.. Lincoln positioned himself as second choice for each of these groups.

Turned out that, for second choice, he was a pretty good president.

I would add a process in which the candidates prove that they are qualified to run a country, versus holding on to an American Idol process.

The fact is that recounts would be far less likely to occur under a national popular vote system than under the current system.

The probability of a recount is 1 in 332 elections. There were, for example, 23 recounts among 7,645 statewide elections in the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006. The average change in the margin of victory was 274 votes. The original outcome remained unchanged in 9 out of 10 recounts.

* Fair Vote. 2007. Survey and Analysis of Statewide Election Recounts 1980-2006. Available at http://www.fairvote.org/reports/?page=1786&ar….

If the President were elected from a single nationwide pool of votes, one would expect a recount once in 332 elections, or once in 1,328 years.

Under the current system in which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes in a particular state, there are 51 separate opportunities for recounts in every presidential election. Thus, our nation’s 55 presidential elections have really been 2,084 separate elections. This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation’s 55 presidential elections. The current system has repeatedly created artificial crises in which the vote is extremely close in certain states, but not at all close on a nationwide basis.
A national popular vote would reduce the probability of a recount from five instances in 55 to 1 in 332 (i.e., once in 1,328 years). In fact the reduction would be even greater because close results are less likely as the size of the jurisdiction increases. Indeed, only two of the 23 recounts were in big states (among the 7,645 statewide elections in the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006).

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are ever changed in recounts (averaging only 274 votes), there would have been no recount in Florida or any other state in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates had a 537-vote margin in Florida.

There was a recount, a court case, and reversal of the original outcome in Hawaii in 1960. Kennedy ended up with a 115-vote margin in Hawaii in an election in which his nationwide margin was 118,574.

Samuel Tilden’s 3% lead in 1876 was a solid victory in terms of the national popular vote (equal to Bush’s solid percentage lead in the 2004 election). However, an artificial crisis was created because of the razor-thin margins of 889 votes in South Carolina, 922 in Florida, and 4,807 in Louisiana. No one would have cared who received more votes in these closely divided states if the President had been elected by a nationwide popular vote.

Critics of a national popular vote have argued that there could be an extremely close nationwide count in the future (and historical data show that there would be one such election in every 1,328 years). However, even in that rare situation, there would also almost inevitably be one or more states with razor-thin popular vote margins. Thus, both systems would also have to grapple with the closeness of that kind of election.
It is important to note that the question of recounts only comes to mind in connection with presidential elections because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors and other officials should not be elected by a popular vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_votin…

With such long lines at polling stations, why isnt Election day a national holiday in the U.S.?

@Rick Actually here in Canada the results are often unexpected because of the "strategic" voting aspect i.e. the ones that lose don't throw their support behind the person that just beat them. That's exactly what happened in 2006 in Alberta when Stelmach (a virtual unknown even by the media) with only 15% of the vote ended up winning with 58% – three rounds – one day http://is.gd/39mA