posted by gut
Maybe. I was thinking more along the lines of people's views and outlook tends to be shaped by their social circles. That's what tips the popular vote to Dems, and they know it which is why they pretend like the electoral college is some inherently unfair and poorly conceived notion.
I mean, I get the frustration of the winner not being the one with the most votes, but the reason I don't like a popular vote model as a viable alternative is what it would do to campaign strategy. As said above, if you live on the wrong 95% of the US's tierra firma, you're basically never going to have anything important to you addressed on the campaign trail unless it's also relevant to the populous areas. To a candidate, you're not important. Anything addressed that is important to you is just the luck of caring about something people in Sacramento/Chicago/Atlanta/Denver/etc. care about.
The notion that our outlook tends to be influenced by our social circles is true wherever you go, so inevitably, if you're running for office, you're going to get the most bang for your buck by hitting the major cities. If you have time to hit 1 more locations on your campaign trail, and we have a popular vote model, where are you going? BFE, Montana with its population of 1,200 on a good year or Los Angeles? You could flip more than 1,200 voters in LA by walking onto the rally platform, lighting a doob, and walking off.
If we think political campaigning is a shit show now ...