A quick google search will show there was a 66% voter turnout in Wisconsin this year compared to 2012 of 70% and the GOP campaigned there more than any year in the past.

I don't know if I can agree with how your sampling then if your not looking at voter turnout election to election.

 

Basically your argument is pushing for the elections and campaigns to be focused on largest Urban areas and the electoral college is the antithesis of this idea. So on that alone we will never agree.

 

The campaigns were going to states in midwest, southeast, southwest and the Northeast . I don't see any argument that abolishing the electoral college would be more inclusive. Heck campaigns were going to Maine and Nebraska to win 1 electoral vote.

 

I think the popular vote would open up competition across the entire country. If every vote counted then campaigns could no longer afford to write-off entire swaths of the country. They would be pressed into visiting more states and addressing more issues than they are currently forced to do now. In my estimation, the EC contributes to a considerable amount of polarization because we are allowed to remain firmly entrenched in red or blue states.

 

On top of that, if you zoom into the swing states, campaigns don't simply go to the largest city in the state to campaign. They visit all over. If this reasoning about a popular vote leading to candidates only visiting NYC and Los Angeles were true, then we'd already be seeing it in swing states. Candidates would just visit Columbus, Jacksonville, and Philadelphia. But, they don't. They run all over these states. If there were a popular vote I would expect the exact same thing to happen on a national level. Candidates would be forced to go everywhere and run national campaigns, not campaigns isolated to a handful of random states.

 

I also don't find the argument about cities having undue influence under a popular vote very compelling. In fact, because the Electoral College is weighted by population, cities currently have more influence. Looking at states like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, etc. these states are dominated by red counties, but are overwhelmingly blue or very competitive because of the cities overcompensate. So, the way the system is currently set up, population centers are more valuable because the EC is weighted by population. Removing this population weight would make many more people's votes impactful.

I think the popular vote would open up competition across the entire country. If every vote counted then campaigns could no longer afford to write-off entire swaths of the country. They would be pressed into visiting more states and addressing more issues than they are currently forced to do now. In my estimation, the EC contributes to a considerable amount of polarization because we are allowed to remain firmly entrenched in red or blue states.

 

On top of that, if you zoom into the swing states, campaigns don't simply go to the largest city in the state to campaign. They visit all over. If this reasoning about a popular vote leading to candidates only visiting NYC and Los Angeles were true, then we'd already be seeing it in swing states. Candidates would just visit Columbus, Jacksonville, and Philadelphia. But, they don't. They run all over these states. If there were a popular vote I would expect the exact same thing to happen on a national level. Candidates would be forced to go everywhere and run national campaigns, not campaigns isolated to a handful of random states.

 

I also don't find the argument about cities having undue influence under a popular vote very compelling. In fact, because the Electoral College is weighted by population, cities currently have more influence. Looking at states like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, etc. these states are dominated by red counties, but are overwhelmingly blue or very competitive because of the cities overcompensate. So, the way the system is currently set up, population centers are more valuable because the EC is weighted by population. Removing this population weight would make many more people's votes impactful.

 

I disagree with literally everything in this post. It's time for us to move on.

The EC is also based on potential voters according to the last census and not the actual voters nor does it allow for a population shift within the decade.

Thank God someone thought this situation out, otherwise candidates would only be in a few states electioneering. And fewer Americans would get representation. Electoral College is working the way it was eventually written. Each state gets equal representation, large or small, liberal or conservative. If it ain't broke don't fix it.