posted by O-Trap
Functionally, a popular vote makes most states irrelevant. A dominating control of a dozen or so of the largest cities in the US would be all it would theoretically take to win an election.
The electoral college ensures that the entire country is theoretically relevant (as relevant as a state can be if they're essentially locked in as either red or blue). Without it, you've essentially got ten or so regions that would dictate everything.
Don't get me wrong. I certainly recognize that the electoral college is a flawed system. There have indeed been a few close elections in which the person elected did not win the popular vote. However, opting instead for a popular vote election institutes what amounts to a regional oligarchy with regard to leaders at the federal level, with the larger metropolitan areas being the only real determiners. Stumping candidates would only address the problems or issues that are important to those areas.
Geographically speaking, the vast, vast majority of the country would be mostly useless in the election, and as such, would mostly go unheard and unconsidered, election after election.
If one wanted to address the problem(s) with the electoral college, I'd argue that the best way to do so would be to revamp the electoral college. Not to get rid of it.
I’m not necessarily stumping to get rid of it.. many years it doesn’t even come into play. In the grand scheme of things I don’t think it matters who wins at this point. Whoever gets elected just undoes what the other party just passed. They then spend the next few years arguing and then we start over again. This is what I mean when I say it doesn’t really matter which way we do it. Of course it would have changed a few winners here and there but in the grand scheme of things I don’t think it changes that much. But I’m also ok with a popular vote. I’m fine with one person and one vote.