With these charts, we can easily see that the candidates for president only really need to address the wants of the ten biggest states to get a majority and win.
Except, unlike with the Electoral College, they won't be winning the entire state, only a majority (however thin that is.)
That, or they can only focus on the cities and the suburbs. That's where all the people are. That's how a purely popular vote works; you go after the people, not the states.
Because it's the people that matter, not the states.
When people say "the president needs to represent the majority country", they're not saying it in terms of people, they're saying it in terms of land. If we had a popular vote, who the forget would care about Montana, or Nevada, or Alaska? No one lives there, so it's justified to work against their interests. AKA, the "tyranny of the majority" you keep hearing about.
Already states with less electoral votes are neglected on campaign trails because they are less important because they have less people. No one visited Alaska or Montana because they have a measly amount of weigh in the College and because they're already slated to vote Republican.
If popular voting was enacted, then you'd accentuate the problem that you're trying to eliminate (less people voting) in less populated states. Voters in those states don't make up the population of the ten most populated states, so they don't matter to the candidates, which means that their input doesn't matter overall. Ever hear the phrase "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner"? That's exactly what they mean by it.
Except votes would no longer be divided by state, so each vote would have an equal amount of worth. The millions of Republicans in New York and California and Minnesota, for example, would actually have their votes matter, as would the millions of Democrats in Texas. "Swing states" would no longer be applicable.
You forgot that the electoral college actually does matter on population size to a degree.
If you compare the college map to the density and population charts, you'll see that they line up pretty well. California has 55 electoral votes, some place like Montana or Alaska has three. However, under this system, the smaller states matter, if not just as much as bigger states, more than they would under a popular vote. The electoral college is the way the smaller states make their voices heard.
If the Electoral College is based on population, then why would the popular vote be dangerous? The only difference is that the smaller groups within states would actually be represented. This would actually work to the favor of republicans since there are likely more republicans in democrat states than there are democrats in republican states (ie a couple million Republicans in California or New York as opposed to a couple hundred thousand Democrats in the prairie states or Alaska.)
You could say that there are "purely red" or "purely blue" states, but keep in mind, these change a lot. California, the bluest loving state in the union, voted for Reagan twice, and Texas used to be Democratic. Even more recently, take a look at Wisconsin this election. Blue turned red in a heartbeat. Swing states also change from election to election. Who ever thought Pennsylvania was important until 2016?
"Texas used to be Democratic," while accurate, is not exactly telling the whole truth. The former Democrat party is essentially the modern Republican party. But yes, even very firm states can switch every couple elections. It's those strings of multiple elections that are bad. My state, Minnesota, has voted Democrat since 1974. That's not exactly fair for Republican/other non-Democrat voters here.
The idea that "the people should decide the election, not the states", no matter how nice it sounds, is pretty dangerous. You realize that if people's votes actually mattered, Harambe would have had a distinct possibility of being elected? People have been talking about uneducated voters; that's the kind of people whose vote would be counted. Vain, ignorant people who are only voting or are interested in voting because they feel like they have to. That, or their parents (with their own affiliation) are informing them. It's what happened with my brother.
For starters,
The Harambe thing never happened or has not been proven to have ever happened.Discounting voters because they're not informed is as ignorant as they are. There are still a great deal of people who
have spent a long time researching their opinions and have been ready to place their support for their candidate. If you assume that the average American is too dumb to vote, you're taking a big, fast step towards totalitarianism. Besides, if the Electoral College votes based on what all these uninformed voters are voting, then the only difference is that more of the actual informed voters' votes don't mean stuff.
