And, in fact, was required to even get the States to Unite in the first place.
But a necessary recount at the federal level would be much less likely than a recount at the state level.
The larger the population is, the smaller the recount margin needs to be.
This is an important point. It’s the same reason the Senate gives equal power to all states, large or small. It was necessary for the formation of the country, and I doubt any small states would be willing to give up the bargain (nor should they be, in my opinion).
I might not have quibbled with this had you not italicised “much.” 
Estimated random error increases as √N. State recounts are usually omitted when a switch would not affect the electoral-college winner. For these reasons, I’m doubtful.
Kennedy won in 1960 34.2 million to 34.1 (a much smaller margin than Gore won by in 2000). There were many disputes in the 1960 election: is it really clear no national recount would have been demanded, were one available? I think many contend credibly that Nixon would have won the popular vote had just Chicago voted and counted properly. The electoral system gave a (desirable!) finality to the election result.
A little history. It was originally anticipated that the electoral college would be a kind of nominating convention and HR would choose, each state having one vote, the actual president from the top three nominees, second place becoming VP. Well, Washington did get a majority in his two elections and by the time of the third, parties were in place and the top two candidates were Jefferson and Burr. Of course, all those electors really intended to choose Jefferson for president and Burr for vice. So HR voted and eventually chose Jefferson, but it was a mess and they amended the constitution to have the electors cast two ballots, one for president and one for vice. But they left the electoral college in place, lord only knows why, since it was even then clear it was not functioning as intended. Only one other election was decided in the house (1824) and that was a mess. I misdescribed it on another thread and was gently corrected.
In 1948, the Dixiecrat (southern Democratic) party won 38 electoral votes but actually got 39 owing to a faithless elector (Truman was omitted from the ballot in four or five states; actually, the secretary of state of at least one state–I think it was Arizona) at one time threatened to refuse to list Obama since he hadn’t proved his natural born citizenship to this guy’s satisfaction, but cooler heads prevailed). I think that is the only instance of a faithless elector in my lifetime.
I should probably know this, but if I ever did, I’ve forgotten: who elects the electors, and how?
They are chosen in each state by the party bosses.
You missed the Adams/Jefferson election between the Washuington/Adams ones and the Jefferson/Burr one.
Nice summary of the Dixiecrat election – I think there has been one other case of a faithless elector in the 64 years since. But with reference to what you said that I quoted: If I have it correctly, the AZ Secretary of State, a Republican but not a Birther, did get a challenge from Birthers, and decided to play it out correctly according to the rules – he announced there had been the challenge, contacted Hawaii, got “evidence satisfactory to him” of Obama’s birth there, and left him on the ballot. If he picked himself up a little publicity at Obama’s expense in the process, from his perspective, all the better! 
Electors are elected in every state by the voters. In 48 states and DC, they’re elected as a whole group by the voters of the entire state/district. In Maine and Nebraska, two are elected based on the statewide vote and the rest are elected by their congressional districts. When you tick the box for “Barack Obama,” you’re actually voting for the slate of electors pledged to Barack Obama. My ballot explained this in tiny print (“A vote for any candidates for President and Vice-President shall be a vote for the electors of those candidates whose names have been certified to the Secretary of State”).
You know those mathematicians who proved that the Electoral College increases the amount of “power” that voters have? If you dig into their definition of “power”, it doesn’t mean what you’d think it does: What they actually proved was that the Electoral College increases the odds of a recount-type situation.
It’s “misleading” only to someone who is uninformed about how the voting process works. It is perfectly reasonable that those who are in charge of things like writing the ballots have a certain expectation that the voter will be informed. You say you “know that there’s this whole electoral college thing”, and yet you choose to not know the specifics of how it works. You can’t blame the ballot writers nor the news media for that.
Sure I can.
It seems like even the knowledgeable posters in this thread don’t agree as to the specifics of how it works - one tells me:
And another:
I asked in this thread simply because it was convenient, but let’s face it - it doesn’t really matter if I understand it or not (and I still don’t). I neither care enough or have enough political clout to change the system, and whether I’m casting my vote for the candidate or the Elector, the end result is that some politician ends up in The White House. I have enough faith in the system that I don’t need to know how it works, just that it does work. I understand IV pumps and wound care; someone else can worry about the Electoral College.
These two statements are both true, and do not contradict each other in any way.
The Democratic party bosses in most states pick who the electors will be for Obama, and the Republican party bosses pick who the electors will be for Romney. The people, by voting for Obama or Romney, elect the elector in question. In voting for Obama, I actually voted for the elector whom the local party bosses had picked; since Obama won my state, this specific elector will, when the day comes, probably cast his official electoral vote for Obama.
Obama hasn’t won yet. The electors don’t vote until a date in December (as set by Congress.) Only then.
Thank you. That was actually helpful.
Where do you live? I’m in CT, and the ballot said “Electors for …” Obama/Biden, Romney/Ryan, &c.
IL; it’s certainly possible I missed something similar.
Slight nitpic to Trinopus’s post: Unless he lives in Nebraska or Maine, in voting for Obama, he actually cast his ballot for a slate of N electors who will, in turn if elected, cast their Electoral College votes for Obama (and separately for Biden). If he’s from one of those two slates, he did likewise but for 3 electors. The N up above is equal to the number of Senators and Representatives his state elects; in Maine and Nebraska, you choose electors{ one from each Congressional district, pledged to vote for whoever carries that district, and two elected statewide and pledged to vote for whoever carries the state as a whole. In practice, I don’t believe there’s ever been a mixed result from either, but there could be.
Nebraska split their electors just four years ago: The 2nd district (which basically corresponds to Omaha) went for Obama, while the rest of the state went for McCain.
This has turned out way more interesting that I thought it would. Thank you.
One of the things which bugs many Australians and which a whole lot more seem not to understand is that we don’t vote for our PM; we vote for our local representative and, depending on which party has the most candidates elected, that party forms government and that party’s head becomes PM. Many people here whinge and gripe that they didn’t vote for Tony Abbott or they voted for Julia Gillard when, unless they happen to live in the electorates of those particular MHRs, they voted for neither. It’s nitpicky but true.
I now find that US Citizens also don’t vote directly for their President. I’m gobsmacked - I always thought the POTUS was directly elected. If I play my cards right, I could win a few bets on this.
IIRC, briefly last night CNN showed one of the Maine electoral votes still undecided after the others had gone to Obama.