i always see this argument when abolishing the electoral college comes up. and every time i have to wonder: why would there need to be a nation-wide recount in a close election? i highly doubt obama's vote totals in california or new york would fall within the range of a mandatory recount, much like romney's totals throughout much of the south. so we'd still end up recounting those few states whose votes *do* end up within the margin of error. same as we have now, only there is not some made-up number of votes associated with winning the state anymore, it is the actual vote total for each person who cast a valid ballot.