Final answer:
Faithless electors are a downside of the EC because they can go against voters' will and may affect election outcomes, undermining the democratic process. They contribute to the electorate's uncertainty and distress regarding the electoral process. Their existence, along with issues of majority rule and direct popular voting, has led to discussions on reforming the EC.
Step-by-step explanation:
How are faithless electors a downside of the Electoral College (EC)? Faithless electors are a significant downside of the Electoral College because they can act against the expressed will of the voters. When electors do not vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, it can undermine the democratic principle that the election should reflect the popular vote. Instances of faithless electors, such as the incident in the District of Columbia during the 2000 election, highlight the potential for single electors to alter the outcome. Similarly, in 2004, the occurrence of a Minnesota elector voting for a vice presidential nominee as president, and the presence of seven faithless electors in the 2016 election, underscore the unpredictable nature of faithless elector behavior. This unpredictability and deviation from expected results pose a challenge to the integrity and predictability of the presidential election process.
The Electoral College system also tends to favor smaller states and results in 'safe' states with predictable outcomes that receive no campaign attention. Thus, it does not represent the popular will and can depress voter turnout. Furthermore, the possibility of faithless electors contributes to voter distress, as it represents a moral hazard, where there's a risk that the chosen candidate may not act in the way voters expect.
In light of these issues, there have been calls for reform or elimination of the Electoral College in favor of a majority rule and direct popular vote system, but these proposals face significant political hurdles and have gained little traction to date.